To Waive or Not to Waive: The Right to Trial and Plea Bargaining

Criminal defendants in many countries are faced with a dilemma: If they waive their right to trial and plead guilty, they typically receive charge or sentence reductions in exchange for having done so. If they exercise their right to trial and are found guilty, they often receive stiffer sanctions than if they had pled guilty. I characterize the former as ‘waiver rewards’ and the latter as ‘non-waiver penalties.’ After clarifying the two and considering the relation between them, I briefly explicate the grounds for a moral right to trial. I then assess the defensibility of such rewards and penalties. In addition to considering whether waiver rewards and non-waiver penalties serve the aims of legal punishment, I address the three main arguments for permitting them. The first suggests that defendants willing to plead display more remorse for their crimes and thus are deserving of lighter sentences. The second defends waiver rewards and non-waiver penalties in cases where prosecutors are alleged to know that defendants are guilty but face problems establishing their guilt at trial. The third holds that guilty defendants who are willing to plead conserve scarce state resources and should be rewarded for it, whereas those unwilling to plead squander such resources and should be penalized accordingly. I contend that none of these arguments provides persuasive grounds for waiver rewards or non-waiver penalties, even on the assumption that we can distinguish those defendants who should waive their right to trial from those who should not. This conclusion presents a fundamental challenge to contemporary plea bargaining practices.

Plea Discounts or Trial Penalties? Making Sense of the Trial-Plea Sentence Disparities

Abstract

There is a consensus that defendants who plead guilty generally receive less harsh sentences than similarly-situated defendants convicted at trial. However, there is less consensus on how to characterize this disparity in the sentence. Some researchers refer to the disparities as “trial penalties,” whereas others refer to them as “plea discounts.” We contend that the two terms have different theoretical backgrounds and underlying assumptions. As a result, the theories require different modeling strategies, and can lead to different predictions on the relationship between the disparity and some key case characteristics.

We start by differentiating the two perspectives theoretically. We then present an empirical analysis on defendants in New York State to substantiate our theoretical arguments. We demonstrate that the estimates of the trial-plea disparities depend on the assumption of the default, as estimates of the trial penalties differed considerably from the estimates of the plea discounts.     

Plea decision-making: the influence of attorney expertise,trustworthiness, and recommendation

ABSTRACT

Attorney recommendations influence defendant plea decisions; and the degree of influence likely rests on the perceived trustworthiness and level of expertise of the attorney (factors of source credibility). We explored attorney source credibility factors and how these characteristics influence defendants’ plea decision-making. MTurk participants read a hypothetical plea scenario and were asked to imagine themselves as the defendant in a DWI/DUI case making a plea decision; in the scenario, we manipulated the defense attorney’s level of trustworthiness, expertise, and plea recommendation. There was a significant interaction between attorney recommendation and trustworthiness on defendants’ plea decisions; participants who were advised to accept the guilty plea were more likely to plead guilty when the attorney was high in trustworthiness compared to low in trustworthiness. Attorney trustworthiness did not affect plea decisions for defendants advised to reject the guilty plea. Importantly, attorney trustworthiness affected defendants’ decision to follow the attorney’s recommendation and ultimate plea decision (regardless of expertise), and attorney expertise affected defendants’ confidence in their decision (regardless of trustworthiness). Results suggest individual-level characteristics of defense attorneys affect the influence of the attorney and their recommendation, and ultimately defendants’ plea decision-making.     

The Time Penalty: Examining the Relationship Between Time to Conviction and Trial vs. Plea Disparities in Sentencing

Although studies of sentencing routinely find that defendants who plead guilty receive relatively lenient sentences compared with similarly situated defendants convicted by trial, we have yet to fully understand the role of “mode of conviction” in the sentencing process. In particular, we know little about how the size of the disparity between guilty pleas and trial convictions may depend upon time in case processing, or the timing of pleas; that is, when during the process defendants plead guilty. This is a considerable issue, as “time” often is central to explanations given for plea-trial disparities. The current study examines this central, yet seldom empirically captured, dimension of the sentencing process. Using information gathered in an ancillary data collection effort operated under the supervision of the American Terrorism Study, we differentiate between the mode of conviction and time to conviction and explore the role of “time” in sentence severity, especially with regard to the plea-trial disparity. While consisting of defendants identified in connection with terrorism investigations, and sentenced in federal courts, our study takes advantages of a unique opportunity to isolate the effects of time from the mode of disposition and to explore time correlates of sentencing outcomes. In doing so, we raise important questions about the multiple ways in which time and mode of conviction may affect sentencing more generally and contribute to the larger theoretical discussions of how punishment decisions are made.     

Constrained Waiver of Trial Rights? Incentives to Plead Guilty and the Right to a Fair Trial

This article develops an interpretative framework to examine when incentives to plead guilty should be found to constrain defendant choice to waive fair trial rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. This framework is informed by existing jurisprudence, specifically the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in Natsvlishvili and Togonidze v. Georgia and Deweer v. Belgium, and socio‐legal literature. According to the framework, an incentive to plead guilty should be found to violate fair trial rights where it makes it unreasonable to expect defendants to exercise their right to a full trial, is independent of the projected outcome at trial, and causes the defendant to plead guilty. An empirical analysis of guilty‐plea practice in England and Wales informed by this new framework identifies problematic incentives and suggests such incentives may disproportionately influence vulnerable defendants.     

被告人认罪案件处理程序的比较法考察

英国、美国、法国、日本和俄罗斯等国都对被告人认罪案件规定了特殊的处理程序。这些国家的被告人认罪案件处理程序在具有简化诉讼程序、强调被告人认罪的自愿性等共同特征的同时,在适用的案件范围和被告人认罪的效果等方面存在一定的差异。我国于2003年确立了被告人认罪案件的处理程序。我国的被告人认罪案件处理程序在程序保障、适用范围等方面尚需要继续研究。     

Limitations on the ability to negotiate justice: attorney perspectives on guilt,innocence, and legal advice in the current plea system

In the American criminal justice system the vast majority of criminal convictions occur as the result of guilty pleas, often made as a result of plea bargains, rather than jury trials. The incentives offered in exchange for guilty pleas mean that both innocent and guilty defendants plead guilty. We investigate the role of attorneys in this context, through interviews with criminal defense attorneys. We examine defense attorney perspectives on the extent to which innocent defendants are (and should be) pleading guilty in the current legal framework and investigate their views of their own role in this complex system. We also use a hypothetical case to probe the ways in which defense attorneys consider guilt or innocence when providing advice on pleas. Results indicate that attorney advice is influenced by guilt or innocence, but also that attorneys are limited in the extent to which they can negotiate justice for their clients in a system in which uncertainty and large discrepancies between outcomes of guilty pleas and conviction at trial can make it a sensible option to plead guilty even when innocent. Results also suggest conflicting opinions over the role of the attorney in the plea-bargaining process.     

Is Plea Bargaining in the “Shadow of the Trial” a Mirage?

It has been well established that a ??plea discount?? or ??trial penalty?? exists, such that defendants who plead guilty receive significant sentencing discounts relative to what they would receive if convicted at trial. Theorists argue that the exact value of this plea discount is determined by bargaining ??in the shadow of a trial,?? meaning that plea decision-making is premised on the perceived probable outcome of a trial. In trials, the strength of the evidence against defendants greatly impacts the probability of conviction. In the present study, we estimate the probability of conviction at the individual level for those who pled guilty. We find that, contrary to the shadow of the trial model, evidentiary factors either do not impact or negatively impact the probability of conviction, which stands in stark contrast to the impact evidence has at trials. These findings suggest that plea bargain decision-making may not occur in the shadow of the trial.     

被告人不认罪案件量刑程序的理想模式

被告人不认罪案件的量刑程序如何设计是当前量刑规范化改革试点过程中一个争议较大的问题,在司法理论和实践中有两种不同的模式——相对独立的量刑程序模式和隔离的量刑程序模式。量刑规范化改革的目的在于使量刑过程程序化、公开化,从而实现量刑公正,达到罪责刑相适应的要求。针对被告人不认罪案件,建立理想的量刑程序模式,将定罪程序与量刑程序有效地分隔开来,有利于达到量刑规范化改革的目的。     

ADVERSARIAL AND NONADVERSARIAL JUSTICE: A COMPARISON OF GUILTY PLEAS AND TRIALS*

Despite the frequency of guilty pleas, researchers disagree about the ability of plea bargaining to provide justice. Critics argue that plea bargaining deprives defendants of due process rights and procedural safeguards Proponents argue that guilty pleas save resources for cases that require trial and allow officials flexibility to tailor justice to individual defendants. This article explores these issues by examining the effect of defendant and case characteristics on sentence severity for 3,269 male robbery and burglary defendants who either pled guilty or were tried in six U.S. jurisdictions, three of which had recently attempted to eliminate or greatly reduce plea bargaining and three with few restrictions on plea bargaining. The results confirm some criticisms of plea bargaining, but refute others. More criminally experienced defendants and defendants who pled guilty at the earliest opportunity did not receive sentencing leniency. Moreover, to a large extent, the same variables predict sentence severity for guilty pleas and trials. In contrast, the results show that defendants convicted at trial received more severe sanctions than defendants who pled guilty, controlling for case severity, evidence, and offender characteristics The results also suggest that the jurisdictions which attempted to control plea bargaining through more centralized control of assistance succeeded in tightening the fit between case characteristics and sentences for both cases adjudicated by guilty plea and trial.     

刑事訴訟法三人談: 認罪認罰從寬制度中的刑事辯護

2019年10月24日,最高人民檢察院聯合最高人民法院、公安部、國家安全部、司法部共同發佈《關於適用認罪認罰從寬制度的指導意見》,對認罪認罰從寬制度的適用作出具體規定,確保這一制度正確有效實施.認罪認罰從寬制度是刑事訴訟法修改後確立的一項重要制度,通過對認罪認罰的犯罪嫌疑人、被告人依法給予程序上從簡或者實體上從寬的處理,實現有效懲治犯罪、強化人權司法保障、提升訴訟效率等目的.     

Convicting and sentencing differences among black,Hispanic, and white males in six localities

The many studies examining differences in convicting and sentencing black, Hispanic, and white defendants have not led to solid generalizations about the treatment of these defendants because the studies have been done at different times and with different methodologies. This study examines differences in convicting and sentencing male defendants in six localities, at the same time and with the same methodology. It concludes that discrimination is directed against blacks and is manifested in incarceration rates. The exact source of this discrimination is not identical in all cities. In some, it seems to occur because whites get better plea bargains than blacks; in others, it is due to the different rates of guilty pleas by black and whites. Overall, there is less evidence of discrimination in cases where a trial is held than in those where a guilty plea is entered.     

Is a Plea Really a Bargain? An Empirical Study of Six Cities in China

There is a belief in the criminal justice system that it is better to take a plea offer to avoid uncertain consequences than risk going to trial. Prior studies using the data in Anglo-American courts have suggested that many legal and extralegal factors influence the decision of a guilty plea versus trial. China developed its own plea-bargaining system in 2016. Using 6826 DUI cases adjudicated in six cities, this study examines what factors affect the decision of a guilty plea and whether the guilty plea brings true benefits in Chinese courts. The results show that more serious crimes and more dangerous defendants were less likely to be disposed of through guilty pleas (as opposed to going to trial). One possible explanation is that prosecutors may make more punitive offers in these cases, which in turn discourages defendants from accepting them. In addition, using a propensity score weighting technique to control for potential confounding variables, this study finds that defendants who pleaded guilty were more likely to receive favorable case outcomes regarding pretrial detention and probation decision, which supports the argument that a guilty plea could help a defendant to avoid the “trial penalty” in Chinese criminal justice system.

     

Low-Level,but High Speed?: Assessing Pretrial Detention Effects on the Timing and Content of Misdemeanor versus Felony Guilty Pleas

Abstract

While numerous studies have examined pretrial detention and felony case outcomes, little empirical attention has been devoted to misdemeanor pretrial detention. We theorize that misdemeanants detained for a longer proportion of time will plead guilty quicker because the costs of fighting their charges in jail often outweigh the sanctions they face. Utilizing data on 165,630 felony and misdemeanor cases from Miami-Dade County, Florida, during a 4-year period (2012–2015) we assess whether the effects of pretrial detention length on the timing and content of guilty pleas differ across lower-level and upper-level courts. Survival analyses and multinomial logistic regressions indicate that misdemeanor cases overall and those involving lengthier pretrial detention are resolved faster, with most resulting in non-carceral sanctions such as credit for time served (CTS). Given that misdemeanors make-up the bulk of U.S. criminal cases, these findings reveal important insights about how pretrial detention impacts case-processing dynamics in lower courts.     

让尾巴摇狗：美国情态证据实证研究

情态证据指的是在庭审时,被告人或证人等的面部、声音或身体等各部分及其整体上表现出来的能够证明案件真实情况的材料。情态证据至今仍被（西方）法律认可为判断证人可靠性的重要基础,在现代司法中起着至关重要的作用。确保审判者能够观察证人作证时情态的机会,为公开审判（开庭审判）提供了历史的和现代的正当性。在美国司法体系中,陪审团可以合法运用证人席上证人的情态证据;对于证人席外情态证据的使用则在实际上存在,法律上没有形成统一而稳定的规范。法官可以在证据排除、藐视法庭罪、量刑、听证、案件事实判断和陪审团选择程序中使用情态证据。检察官可以在辩诉交易和量刑建议、陪审团候选人＂无因排除＂和审判程序中合理使用情态证据。律师在诉讼过程中不仅从法律意义上,更从诉讼策略意义上运用情态证据。     

Race and Ethnic Differences in Punishment and Death Sentence Outcomes

Abstract

A review of the capital punishment literature shows evidence of differential treatment of defendants at two separate levels: commutations and executions. However, since most prior studies have followed a dichotomous approach, little is known about other death sentence outcomes, that is, sentence declared unconstitutional, sentence overturned, and conviction overturned and Latino/a defendants have either been excluded or treated as a monolithic group. Hence, little is known about death sentence outcomes for Latinos/as, whose experiences differ from those of African Americans and Caucasians. The main objective of this study, then, is to expand on the existing data by analyzing death sentence outcomes data for California, Florida, and Texas between 1975 and 1995. Logistic regression, controlling for time under the sentence of death, prior felony convictions, age at the time of the offense, marital status, and education, shows that disparities in death sentence outcomes is not a phenomenon of the past or restricted to commutations and executions. The findings suggest that race and ethnicity and several legal variables still play a role in the legal decision-making process.     

Reassessing the Influence of Criminal History in Federal Criminal Courts

Abstract

Prior sentencing research indicates that defendants with more extensive criminal histories receive more punitive dispositions and that criminal history influences sentencing decisions over and above its influence on the guideline recommended sentence. To date, these additional effects of criminal history have almost exclusively been treated as linear effects. However, there are plausible reasons to expect that criminal history could have curvilinear effects on sentencing outcomes that taper off at higher scores. The purpose of this paper is to explore the potential curvilinear effects of defendant criminal history on incarceration, sentence length, and downward departure decisions in federal criminal courts. The findings suggest that criminal history has curvilinear effects on each of these sentencing outcomes. As criminal history category increases, defendants receive more severe sentences, net of other factors, but only up to a certain threshold level, at which point criminal history effects taper off and even reverse.     

Legal Decisions of Preadolescent and Adolescent Defendants: Predictors of Confessions,Pleas, Communication with Attorneys,and Appeals

While there is an increasing recognition that developmental differences may exist in legal decision-making, little research has examined this. This study examined the legal judgments of 152 defendants aged 11–17 (73 females, 79 males). Adolescents aged 15 and younger were more likely than older adolescents to confess and waive their right to counsel, and less likely to report that they would appeal their case or discuss disagreements with their attorneys. Also, while adolescents aged 15–17 were more likely to confess, plead guilty, and accept a plea bargain if they perceived that there was strong evidence against them, younger defendants’ legal decisions were not predicted by the strength of evidence. Importantly, defendants with poor legal abilities were more likely to waive legal protections, such as the right to counsel and to appeal. Defendants from below-average socioeconomic backgrounds were more likely to waive their interrogation rights, and defendants from ethnic minority groups were less likely to report that they would disclose information to their attorneys. The advice of attorneys, parents, and peers emerged as important predictors of plea decisions. None of the defendants reported that their parents advised them to assert the right to silence during police interrogation.     

The Impropriety of Plea Agreements: A Tale of Two Counties

In this article, the author, a former prosecutor and a former assistant public defender, draws on his five and a half years of experience as a "professional plea bargainer" to explore the many subtleties of a practice that he suggests leads to work avoidance, misplaced loyalties, coercion, and other negative characteristics on the part of courthouse regulars, and to injustice for those criminal defendants who do not wish to plead guilty. He suggests that criminal courts have become overly dependent on plea bargaining, which is used much more extensively than is either necessary or appropriate.     

Whither the Prosecutor? Prosecutor and County Effects on Guilty Plea Outcomes in Wisconsin

Abstract

By most accounts, the prosecutor is the most powerful person in the courtroom, with discretion to dismiss cases, reduce charges, and offer noncustodial sentences in exchange for guilty pleas. Yet, little is known about the effects of individual prosecutors or community contexts on case outcomes. Relying on data from 318,000 felony and misdemeanor cases in Wisconsin, the present study examines the impact of several prosecutor and county characteristics on case dismissal, guilty plea to lesser charges, and the imposition of a noncustodial sentence following a guilty plea. The authors find that prosecutor caseload composition is associated with variations in guilty plea outcomes, but that neither prosecutor experience nor prosecutor caseload pressure affect other case outcomes. The authors also find that defense counsel and change in defense counsel exert significant influence on guilty plea outcomes. These findings are discussed in relation to focal concerns and courtroom communities perspectives.