1. Chapter Thirteen: Negotiated Justice and the Plea of Guilty

2. Law on the Books: Types of Pleas
Charge Bargaining
Defendant pleads guilty in return for a less serious charge
Count Bargaining
Defendant pleads to some of the original counts charged and prosecutor dismisses the rest
Sentence bargaining
Defendant pleads to the original charge in exchange for a promise of leniency in sentencing
Caseloads
Differences among jurisdictions in the ratio of pleas to trials primarily reflect differences in the prosecution and the police, not in crime rates or court resources

3. Law in Action: Factors Influencing Bargaining and Discretion
Presumption of factual guilt
Most legally innocent defendants are removed in earlier screening processes
Preliminary hearing, Grand jury, Prosecutor’s charging decision
Costs and risks of trial
All members of the courtroom workgroup have a common interest in disposing of cases and avoiding unnecessary trials
What to do with the guilty
Sentencing decisions
Members of the courtroom workgroup seek to individualize justice

4. Bargaining and the Courtroom Workgroup
Prosecutor
Certainty of conviction
Control the negotiating process
Defendants
Possibility of a lenient sentence
Immediate release

5. Bargaining and the Courtroom Workgroup
Defense Attorneys
Assesses the offer
Negotiates the terms of the plea bargain
Counsels the defendant
Judges
Pressure attorneys to accept pleas
Attorneys know the “going rate” a judge will accept in a plea bargain for each charge

6. Dynamics of Bargaining
Decision-making norms
Shared conceptions of how specific types of cases and defendants should be treated
Seriousness of the offense
Defendant’s criminal record
Strength of prosecutor’s case

7. Dynamics of Bargaining
Why Cases Go To Trial
Parties cannot settle through negotiation
Defense attorneys recommend a trial when risks are low and possible gains are high
Defendants demand a trial
Some types of cases more likely to go to trial
Homicide
Sexual assault
Robbery

8. Dynamics of Bargaining
Jury Trial Penalty
Difficult to draw conclusions because of tremendous discrepancies among jurisdictions
Three strikes statutes allow prosecutors to threaten very long sentences

9. Copping a Plea Questioning the Defendant Nolo Contendere
Latin phrase meaning “I will not contest it”
Has the same impact as a guilty plea but can not be used in civil proceedings
Boykin v. Alabama (1969)
A “Boykin” form is required to accept a guilty plea ensuring it is voluntary

10. Copping a Plea Accepting a Plea Alford Plea
Alford v. North Carolina (1971)
Defendant “saves face”
Same effect as a guilty plea
Alford pleas are accepted in some cases, allowing the defendant to plead guilty but at the same time not acknowledge his guilt on the record (death penalty cases where the defendant wants to avoid death but contends he/she is innocent).

11. Opposition to Plea Bargaining
Due Process Model
Undercuts protections afforded individuals
May lead to conviction of innocent defendants
Produces few tangible benefits for defendants
Crime Control Model
Allows defendants to avoid conviction for crimes they actually committed
Results in lenient sentences
Gives criminal wrongdoers the impression that the courts and the law are easily manipulated