Been listening to a bunch of true crime podcasts lately. More often than not, the person accused of a horrific crime, is offered some sort of reduced sentence, in exchange for a guilty plea. I know part of the reason is to spare the victim(s) and their families the trauma of going through a trial. It just seems pointless when they have so much evidence to convict them and give them a harsher sentence, especially considering how many people rarely serve the full sentence. I get it but I also don’t.
In: Other
Appellate public defender here. It’s pretty much about efficiency and a guaranteed conviction. As others have said, trials are long and expensive. Plus, when a person pleads guilty, often they have virtually no ability to appeal, and appeals are also long and expensive. Finally, witnesses, juries, and sometimes even judges can be unpredictable.
Keep in mind that even when there’s a mountain of physical evidence, that evidence hasn’t always been obtained legally (e.g., no search warrant or warrant exception, or the person’s other constitutional rights have been violated). If that’s the case, what looks like a slam-dunk can fall apart very quickly if a trial judge suppresses some or all of that evidence.
Latest Answers