Once defendant agrees, if he does, then the plea bargain is presented to a judge. If the judge accepts the plea barain and he speaks with the defendant to make sure he/she is making a “knowing and intelligent” plea, then the defendant will be sentenced. If the defendant or judge refuse to enter into a plea then the case is taken to trial. Prosecution Benefits One of the biggest benefits to the prosecution from a plea bargain is that it is an assured conviction. Also, plea bargains allow prosecuters to protect government informants, which most likely have criminal records.
The trial judge looks for evidence that the defendant acted intentionally, outrageously, recklessly or with conscious disregard for the rights of others. Such conduct is generally deemed sufficiently egregious to warrant the imposition of punitive damages. If the facts can support such a finding, the punitive damage issue is allowed to go to the jury.' Once the question has been submitted to the jury, the generally accepted rule is that the jury, in its sole, unfettered discretion, determines whether to award punitive damages and in what amount.' "It is the long settled and uniformly adhered to rule in our jurisprudence that the amount of punitory or exemplary damages is solely within the discretion of the jury, and, no matter what the sum of their * Professor of Law, Marquette University Law School, Milwaukee, WI.
With a plea bargain it can conclude a criminal case a lot faster without a trail. In a plea bargain the prosecutor will offer a plea and if the defendant takes it then he/ she will plead guilty without having to go to through a trial. Once the defendant accepts the plea the prosecutor will most likely dismiss certain charges or make sentence recommendation to the court. Once the attorney and the prosecutor have reached an agreement they bring it up to the defendant to see if they want to take the deal or not and that is called plea negotiations. A plea bargain can help a prosecutor by it saves the court valuable time for high-priority cases.
At this time if the defendant chooses to have a counsel present, the counsel has to be present them from the beginning of the defendant’s court proceedings, through the end of the initial appearance through the appeal, unless the defendant chooses to waive there rights. This is governed by federal and local courts because in some cases there appears to be multiple arrests, and because of this Joint Representation is possible. This allows defendants to be represented by the same attorney’s. Sometimes the court orders separate cases tried to bring in a single indictment. Afterwards the arraignment is opened in court to make sure the defendant has a copy of their indictment, after the indictment is read and the defendant is asked to give a plea whether guilty or not guilty.
Module 1 Case Analysis Assignment Chapter 3 Question 1 (pg. 65) Q: Explain the two types of jurisdiction that a court must have to hear a case and render a binding decision over the parties. A: Original Jurisdiction involves parties that present evidence and witnesses to testify. With the original jurisdiction the courts have the power to hear a case as soon as it enters the legal system. Appellate Jurisdiction is the ability to review the transcripts of trial courts and see if they may have made an error in their decision.
Unless the government is able to prove the existence of these elements, it can't obtain a conviction in a court of law. The due process model is a model of the criminal justice system that stresses that every criminal justice conclusion is built on scrupulous information. Due process stresses the adversarial process, the rights of defendant and the rights of the formal decision-making procedure. It is vital to realize that courts allow individuals to defend themselves based on entrapment, self-defense or insanity. These, however, must be proved appropriately to allow courts practice fairness in defenses.
Wrongful convictions are the result of the court system admitting insufficient evidence into court. The court system has many ways to help reduce or eliminate the causes of wrongful convictions. The court system can help reduce or eliminate these causes of wrongful convictions by first identifying why wrongful convictions occur. Wrongful convictions occur primarily due to eye-witness misidentification, false confessions, improper forensic science, government misconduct, informants, and bad attorneys (University, 2009). Ways to reduce or eliminate the cause of wrongful convictions by eye-witness misidentification by put into operation the following procedures that have been shown to reduce the amount of wrongful convictions through the use of eye-witness identification.
Plea Bargains Andrea Dennis-Hart September 23, 2009 Tony Stroud A plea bargain according to Black’s Law Dictionary is the process whereby the accused and the prosecutor in a criminal case work out a mutually satisfactory disposition of the case subject to court approval. It usually involves the defendant’s pleading guilty to a lesser offense or to only one or some of the counts of a multi-count indictment in return for a lighter sentence than that possible for the graver charge (Black, 1991, p. 798). Many plea bargains need to get the approval of the court, but some may not be; this is when prosecutors may drop charges in exchange for a guilty plea. There are different forms of plea bargains. All involves some form of sentence reduction.
● The exclusionary rule is the main remedy that will be focused on throughout the remainder of this book. It requires that evidence obtained in violation of certain constitutional amendments (notably the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth) be excluded from the criminal trial. Exceptions to the exclusionary rule have been recognized in cases in which (1) the police acted in good faith but nonetheless violated the Constitution and (2) the prosecutor sought to impeach a witness at trial by pointing to contradictions in his or her out-of-court statements, even if such statements were obtained in an
This sentencing goal is critical due to the fact that different state has different sentencing laws. These are issues the American society deals with when a court sanctioned a cruel and unreasonable punishment. Structured Sentencing The public opinion of social justice wanted a different sentencing model that will determine fair justice to convicted criminals. Through criticism of its methods, the