Posted on 03/14/2006 1:05:07 PM PST by Former Military Chick
I'd say that the reason is due to most people who take plea bargains not knowing any better. Imagine you were some small-fry perp caught with several rocks of crack, and your court-appointed attorney tells you that your best bet would be to plead guilty and go for a lighter sentence. This lawyer will also tell you that your fate is sealed (and that the 'evidence' is 'rock solid' and 'infallible'), and that if you decide to go to trial you will just be adding years and sorrow to your sentence. Your attorney also 'forgets' to tell you that if you plead you lose the chance for an acquital, and also 'forgets' to tell you that he/she is paid only for the first 15-20 hours (and thus has no incentive in taking your case far). Now, also imagine that you have no legal background (apart from being a very good lookout for cops in your 'hood), and you just want the whole ordeal to end. In such circumstances you would be hard-pressed to not take the plea bargain.
There are some cases where it is prudent to go for a plea-bargain, but such cases are not many. Definitely not at the current level whereby 90% of convictions are plea-bargains. Most of the people opting for them know not what they are doing (and I doubt they are fully informed of what is going on anyways .....fully informed).
As a lawyer, I have a few thoughts about this case. First of all, no one has mentioned that an insanity defense is entirely inconsistent with even an attempted plea bargain. When you plead insanity, you must convince the jury that you were incapable of comprehending the wrongful nature of your acts at the time the crime was committed. But a plea bargain involving a guilty plea is an entirely rational act based on enlightened self-interest. In fact, before any such guilty plea can be accepted, the trial judge must first ascertain, on the record, that it was entered knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently, and that there is an adequate factual and legal basis for the plea. For the defendant in this case to offer to "waive" the issue of his alleged mental incapacity in exchange for a lesser prison term makes no sense if he was, in fact, mentally infirm. Of course, the jury will never be given the opportunity to learn all this until after the trial's over, so . . .
Second, I must disagree wit those who think an insanity plea would probably work if the defendant had a slick enough lawyer. Insanity pleas work best in cases when there is no apparent motive, and this case doesn't appear to fall into that category. Likewise, the utter brutality and wanton cruelty of a given attack can generally be turned against the defendant by a skillful prosecutor. So all in all, I think the defense team is quite unhappy right now -- which is generally a good sign to anyone but the criminal defense bar and the ACLU.
Finally, as to the alleged tendency of some here to decry "judicial activism" except when it pleases the poster, one must keep in mind that what this judge did is explicitly permitted under the law of nearly every state. What tends to bother me is when judges attempt to justify the exercise of raw, virtually unrestrained judicial power which is barely constitutionally permissible by claiming that it is actually constitutionally mandated.
Thanks for ping and update. Good for the Judge.
Hey friends, just wanted to say thanks for the terrific comments. I also wanted to add a pet peeve and that this news article got moved to "general/chat."
Why the frustration. Well, in the last few months, judges and their inabilities have been brought up in the NATIONAL news quite a bit. The guy from Vermont to another most recent named Conner.
Nationally folks are angry. They feel that many aren't doing their jobs.
Than an article showing a judge DOING his duties becomes available. In a case that has received quite of bit of attention. It wasn't a ho hum article, it was one of judicial action. I am sure there is a more legal/professional word but the judge decided to the right thing. Again, I am sure there is a legal term of how his ruling, that he denied the plea deal, differed from a judge who say tries to change a sentence (the reduction of a sex offender's sentence).
This judge should be praised, this article should be passed along to your newspaper's, other judges should be made aware of McDonald's actions, to remind them of how judges should judge from the bench.
Sorry for the rant, I really thought more of this article than "general/chat" this imho was an impressive judge ... JUST DOING HIS JOB.
agreed
ONE example of a Judge who has used his legitimate and lawful discretion in a good way.....now it will be up to a jury, as it should be.
FWiW, atty Ribitwer just today had a client who killed another mans entire family while driving at 0.32 drunk (0.08 is legally drunk here) get sentenced such that he will serve at least 19 years before even being considered eligible for parole.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.