Supreme Court: Plea Bargainers Do Not Have Right to More Evidence

Washington Post ^ | Monday, June 24, 2002 11:23AM | Gina Holland

[max_rpf]

WASHINGTON

[max_rpf]

Couldn't find this at a more FR freindly source....

[max_rpf]

From TBO:

WASHINGTON (AP) - Prosecutors do not have to turn over more evidence to defendants considering guilty pleas, the Supreme Court ruled Monday.

The unanimous court rejected arguments that people have a constitutional right to see much of the case against them before making a decision about their plea.

The ruling turned on whether defendants who plead guilty should receive the same information that prosecutors give defendants who plead innocent and go on trial.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco had said prosecutors must reveal any evidence that could help the defendant's case. The high court, on a 9-0 vote, overturned that decision.

Justice Stephen Breyer said at least 90 percent of federal criminal cases are settled with plea bargains. Changing disclosure requirements would burden the government, he said.

"We cannot say that the Constitution's due process requirement demands so radical a change in the criminal justice process in order to achieve so comparatively small a constitutional benefit," said Breyer, writing for the court.

Prosecutors already have to reveal some information to accused defendants, but they don't have to release all of their case, including lists of prospective witnesses.

The Bush administration had warned that tens of thousands of cases nationwide could be hurt if the court required more information sharing by prosecutors.

Breyer said the administration had legitimate concerns that guilty pleas would be harder to obtain and that ongoing investigations would be disrupted.

Justices upheld the 18-month sentence given Angela Ruiz, who pleaded guilty to importing marijuana after agents found 66 pounds of marijuana hidden in the 1970 Mercury Cougar she was driving in Southern California near the Mexico border in 1999.

The case is United States v. Ruiz, 01-595.

---

On the Net:

Supreme Court: http://www.supremecourtus.gov

[Redbob]

"Justices upheld the 18-month sentence given Angela Ruiz, who pleaded guilty to importing marijuana after agents found 66 pounds of marijuana..."

And what did stoner Ruiz think the "evidence" against her might have been?

[E. Pluribus Unum]

This is like a poker player asking to see the cards in the other players' hands before deciding whether to bet or fold.

[Howlin]

LOL!

[goldstategop]

This is one decision I am in complete agreement with. The government is not obligated to disclose you anything in exchange for a plea bargain. If you decide not to fight the charges and go to trial, don't expect the government to be your friend. That's the way it should be.

[LisaFab]

Nice analogy.

[stylin19a]

so everyone pleads "not guilty", then gets discovery, then tries to make a deal. Seems like the courts COULD get overburdened, tho probably nothing will really change.

[monkeyshine]

so comparatively small a constitutional benefit

I'm not surprised that Breyer would say that. I am surprised that this was a unanimous ruling. Isn't going to trial a greater burden then turning the evidence over to the defendent? And if the defendents go to trial, they'd have to turn it over anyway. Sounds like the government is making a cas much ado about nothing, but it also sounds initially like a bad ruling to me.

[coloradan]

Yet another 9th circuit decision being slapped down, this time 9-0.

[Henchster]

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco had said prosecutors must reveal any evidence that could help the defendant's case. The high court, on a 9-0 vote, overturned that decision.

Message to 9th in San Fran from SCOTUS:

SMACK! "What the H@ll were you liberal doofuses thinking? Don't make us come down there."

[Illbay]

THAT seems quite far-reaching in its implications.

[Illbay]

Justices upheld the 18-month sentence given Angela Ruiz, who pleaded guilty to importing marijuana after agents found 66 pounds of marijuana hidden in the 1970 Mercury Cougar she was driving in Southern California near the Mexico border in 1999.

So, this woman and her lawyer were saying "hm, they have the 30 kilos of pot, wonder what else they got?"

The court is right; this kind of stuff is just calculated to bog down the legal system more than it already is.

[CA Conservative]

so everyone pleads "not guilty", then gets discovery, then tries to make a deal.

The only problem with that is, once you reject the plea, then you take your chance with a jury... The government usually will offer you a reduced sentence in return for a guilty ple... once that is rejected, if you see from the evidence that they have a slam-dunk case, you could be stuck with the full sentence. The state is not obligated to offer you another deal, even if you are willing to make one at that point.

[Orangedog]

SMACK! "What the H@ll were you liberal doofuses thinking? Don't make us come down there."

LOL I can just picture Renquist walking in there and taking off his belt!

[hobbes1]

30 keys, she only got 18 months.....and Still, is appealing....sheeesh...(I am against the WOD, but for 66 lbs, she should be locked up alot longer than 18 mhts...)

[Tacis]

"And what did stoner Ruiz think the "evidence" against her might have been?"

My bet is that the Mexican politician that she was working for felt that there was an informer in his organization and would like to have seen who was/wasn't on the potential witness list.

Unless she was the daughter of a faithfull employee, the Mexican official and drug lords don't care about her, they just want to maximize the future shipments that are delivered.

[ijcr]

So a determined D.A. can withold exculpatory evidence and negotiate a defendant into pleading guilty,and watch someone who may be innocent do time.

It is an insult to the ethical and moral principles that guide the application of the law.

The phrase " Beyond reasonable doubt" has been disregarded in this ruling, if the state's/governments case is so sure, what is the problem in full discovery?

If it was your son/daughter in the dock would you deny them full discovery?

[FormerLurker]

Justice Stephen Breyer said at least 90 percent of federal criminal cases are settled with plea bargains. Changing disclosure requirements would burden the government, he said.

Of that 90%, how many are actually guilty, and how many of those are innocent but settle for a plea bargain due to the possibility of a incredibly long prison sentence if they lose in court?

[anymouse]

"Beyond reasonable doubt" comes into play when you chose to see what is behind door number 2 and take your chances before a jury. If you know you are innocent, then this should prove no concern.

If you are guilty, then you know that there probably is evidence if you got caught, and cutting a deal would be prudent. Why give a perp a "get out of jail free card" just for being smart enough to ask to see all of the evidence before being offered a deal?