The Varsity Blues prosecutions is a pretty good representative sample of how our criminal justice system operates.
57 defendants were indicted.
54 pleaded guilty (95%).
3 went to trial (5%).
1 was acquitted (1.75%).
Those numbers very closely track the national averages on federal cases, where about 97% of defendants plead guilty.
You'll be shocked to learn that the two defendants who went to trial and lost received the longest sentences in the case.
Some of the defendants with the best chances of acquittal pleaded guilty and either received no jail time or a few weeks of jail. There is no question that if some of those defendants had gone to trial, some of them would have been acquitted. But they saw the risks as too great.
The federal prosecutors who brought these cases are out there saying that winning 56 of 57 cases shows that the cases were righteous.
But let's assume that 20% of cases went to trial and that more than a third of those were acquitted (to track the numbers that existed in this country pre-sentencing guidelines). Would the government still be patting itself on the back?
The two defendants who lost at trial are appealing their sentences. The appellate court will be faced with the question of whether cheating to get into college should be a federal crime. It's an important question; however, it will be much tougher for the appellate court to reverse where almost everyone has pleaded guilty (for fear of the trial tax).
Had more defendants challenged their cases and had done so earlier, perhaps the whole investigation would have been shut down as some would certainly have won at trial and perhaps those that lost would have won on appeal.
Our criminal justice system was built on trials. On forcing the government to actually prove beyond a reasonable doubt a righteous case. Not on coercing folks to plead guilty.
7 comments:
"I'm shocked, shocked to find that there is gambling in this establishment!"
"Your winnings sir"
Trial tax? Pshaw. What trial tax??? The judges just "learned more" about the cases that went to trial.
Hammer than point home please. Judges read this blog. They need to be called out on what they do.
A figure you do not cite, which is hugely relevant: how many people did the government pass on charging because it felt guilt could not be proven?
We are becoming a nation of felons. There are so many ways for someone to become a felon, that it doesn't have the same stigma as it once did (like bankruptcy). The "trial tax" is what forces innocent people to plead guilty. There's not an experienced defense attorney who won't admit that he/she has had clients take a deal rather than run the risk. Once you tell a client the risks - "run guidelines" for them if they plead or if they go to trial - they will take the deal the far majority of the time. We need judges to recognize why people do go to trial and if convicted, give them a sentence that makes sense.
You can hammer away all you want on the trial tax, but this is something ingrained in judicial thought. There are many who don't play that game, but sadly you won't change the minds of all the others.
One man's trial tax is another man's plea rebate.
Math
So is a guidelines range sentence after trial, with zero points deducted for acceptance of responsibility, a fair sentence in your opinions? If not, then the problem many defense attorneys have would be with the guidelines themselves... not a "trial tax." Or am I misunderstanding the frustrations?
Post a Comment