I was told by a civil litigator that 95% or more of his cases were settled before trial, mostly because after discovery, and pre-trial motion jockeying, they had a pretty good idea of how the case would go, and because full-on big civil trials are extremely expensive in terms of legal fees.
The other side of this argument, of course, is that prosecutors leave a lot on the table for the convenience of a plea. It is also likely that the group accepting a pleas includes more who would not be found guilty compared to the number of innocents in the convicted group. I.e., if innocent do not plea bargain.
Perry Mason usually ends his cases without a jury trial by proving there is no case or getting someone to confess in the preliminary hearings.
Isn’t that the way it always works with justice being done and the true guilty party being found out and jailed?
/s
A typical civil trial can cost over $50k just to have a simple trial. Legal cost are prohibitive for most people who seek justice.
All of the civil trials I have any experience with have settled, but usually not until minutes before the trial is scheduled to start or actually during the trial.
I am retired now, but in my previous life I was a litigation analyst in the insurance industry. So, I handled literally thousands of civil cases during my career.
Without exaggeration, it was my experience that many civil court judges tried to avoid hearing cases; they sought to avoid that responsibility like the plague. Oh, they loved being judges, but mainly for the perks; they did NOT want to do what they were elected or appointed to do.
There were many times when a judge refused to rule on dispositive motions until the case went to mediation, if necessary, several times; and the judge kept refusing to hear the motions until the case settled. And, if the case did not settle, the judge would come down hard on the party he or she felt was responsible for the case not settling, and that party was generally the defendant.
Plaintiff attorneys know this and play it for all its worth. They could bring the most bullsh1t cases you’ve ever seen, where clearly there was no liability against the defendant, because they knew they’d get at least some degree of monetary settlement because of what — really — was a shakedown, a shakedown in which the judge was eagerly willing to play a role.
I’ve seen judges threaten insurance representatives with contempt of court and a few nights in the local pokey if they did not settle a case (the judges would screech about arbitrariness and capriciousness and not acting in good faith, etc.). In small towns, or very political towns where the local sheriff and the local judge are nothing short of deities, they could get away with it.
Now, there certainly are some very good and very conscientious judges, who do take their jobs seriously and do try to apply the law fairly and equitably; however, there are enough who don’t that it makes the judicial system something other than a level paying field, where Lady Justice is wearing a blindfold.
I grew up believing that the law was the great equalizer, the great arbiter of fair and equitable justice. I loved that, because without it we’d become anarchists and savages. I loved the law as it was supposed to be, as I was taught it WAS; but that is not the law that we have today. I weep for what might have been.