Why the Accused Takes the Plea Bargain
My friend, Geoffrey, sent me an article published in the Washington Post, Sunday, January 14, 2018, “Why an innocent person would expect a plea deal.” He was most upset and confused about how an innocent man or woman would plead guilty to some charge they were not guilty of. So I told him I would share my twenty-five years of knowledge with him. For I am the “jail house lawyer,” the “writ writer,” who has helped many a man seek justice in the State and Federal Court of Appeals.
In my twenty-five plus years of life inside these prison walls I have spoken to and understood men who plead out to a lesser charge to avoid trial. I know the reasons why. So I hope this tale of true crime stories will help the public understand things.
FIRST: Excessive force, police torture and brutality can break a man or woman facing charges. In Illinois I give you the most notorious case, the Chicago Police Commander, Jon Graham Burge. In Chicago’s Police Area Two Jon Burge was the boss. He condoned the act of getting a confession by any means necessary. For example, plastic bags were placed over men to suffocate them. This was repeated until they broke and signed confession. Electric shock devices were applied until a confession to a murder was signed.
Burns to the men’s bodies by hot steam pipes, cigarettes and other devices at the hands of the Chicago Investigation Unit under John Burge were commonplace. So one must only investigate the reign of Jon Graham Burge to understand one reason for citizens under arrest to break and sign a confession to a crime of which they were innocent.
SECOND: Sexual offense charges present a double edged sword here. Yes, we want to stop the sexual abuse of a child, or person, abuse of any degree, but the same stiff circumstances are very heavy bargaining chip for a prosecutor. The boyfriend who pissed off his girlfriend can be doomed if she gets a child to say that the boyfriend, “touched me here, or did this to me.”
The ugly circumstances can make a man plead out to a lesser charge to avoid sexual conviction. For a convicted sex offender must register as a sex offender for the rest of his life. He or she will be placed on a website where everyone who logs on will know their face and history. Their address and picture will bring retaliation upon them for that crime for life.
With this as a heavy influence, a man charged will accept a plea bargain to a lesser charge simply to avoid the risk of a sexual charge conviction. So the prosecutor holds a big stick over the man or woman charged. They threaten a future so heinous the accused will break just to avoid the possibility of carrying that stigma for life. When any witness and together with the child get up in front of that jury to point a finger at the defendant and say, “That man violated me in this manner,” the defendant is doomed. For all he can say is, “I did not do it!” The jury will convict swiftly.
THREE: Prior arrest record and convictions. The prosecutor will use the defendant’s prior record of arrest and conviction in the trial to sway a jury You see, this is a tricky proposition. The accused has the right to go to trial, to take the stand and present testimony and evidence in his own defense. But once the accused takes a stand, that opens the door for the prosecutor to bring up and expose all prior convictions–a most convincing act before a jury. For the prosecutor is seeking to plant the seed of thought here, “Well, my jury, if he did these crimes before, that he is surely guilty of the one he is charged with today.” Sadly, many an innocent man and woman have been convicted by this simple but effective prosecution tool.
Therefore, you have the man or woman, who has a prior record, thinking about this fact. Their testimony is crucial to their defense at trial. But if they take the stand as required, they open the door to be convicted again for their past mistakes. So they often plead to a lesser charge to avoid the larger sentence that will surely follow a conviction. Even though they are not guilty, they must weigh the odds and strength of their alibi against the unbridled power the prosecutor’s office. Often it boils down to the man or woman locked in a jail cell, unable to recruit evidence and witnesses versus the prosecution team, the police department, the state forensic lab and the state police—a very formidable force! So they break under the pressure. They take the deal.
FOUR: The public defender. Quite often inept, overworked and underpaid, the public defender takes one look at his client and decides, “This person is guilty. I am not wasting my time and resources on him or her.”
So the defense is skewed from the start. The accused is incarcerated in the jail without the hope of raising a bond. Their appointed attorney is not investigating their defense. The public defender is not tracking down witnesses or recovering documents and evidence to use at trial. As the accused is sitting in a jail cell watching the prosecution building its case, he is forced to cut his losses and plea.
The defendant must ask and answer the question, “Do I go to trial and shortly face a conviction due to my inept public defender, or do I save the prosecutor a trial and take the lesser sentence. For if I go to trial and am found guilty a stiffer sentence will be imposed as punishment for going to trial.”
So I ask, “What would you do in this set of circumstances?” For this very scenario is played out daily across our great nation.
The accused is promised a chance to get a fair trial but the facts are that the accused cannot afford a competent attorney nor pay for an investigator to search out witnesses and produce evidence in a defense.
You only have a chance when you have a competent attorney, the ability to present a solid defense and the money to supply these facts can you seek justice at a trial. Since the accused is unable to hire a competent counselor, he must decide to between rolling the dice at trial or taking the lesser charge and sentence. These are the sad facts!
FIVE: The “jailhouse snitch” looking to get a deal. Believe it or not, this scenario gets the largest conviction rate for prosecutors. It works like this: the accused is put in the county jail with a person facing charges they are guilty of. That person has no moral compass. He or she will sell their mother to get the bigger, better deal. So they form a bond with the prosecutor. That low–life is given a reduced sentence to testify for the state. The prosecutor feeds them enough information about the case so they can create a story, a fabrication that begins with the unlikely scenario of the accused taking this person into his confidence, then admitting to the crime and telling the jailhouse snitch exactly how he committed the crime.
The person accused of the crime has no knowledge of that crime but may not be able to remember where he was on that day or night. He is unable to present a defense to rebut the jailhouse snitch testimony, who tells the jury that the accused admitted guilt. He cannot hire a private attorney to research and expose the jailhouse snitch for what he is. So that person is forced to decide between a trial, where he will surely be convicted, or taking a plea to a lesser charge.
So many take the deal. They decide that serving a little time is better than serving a life time. The jailhouse snitch is paid with a reduced sentence to do the prosecutor’s bidding here. This is a tall hurdle to jump.
So I have given you five reasons why the accused takes the plea bargain. I hope my friend, Geoffrey, will get this response to the Washington Post, for it needs to be read by the public. Only then will the American citizen understand why the innocent take the plea deal.
