Plea bargaining recommendations by criminal defense attorneys: evidence strength, potential sentence, and defendant preference

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 573-585 ◽  
Author(s):  
Greg M. Kramer ◽  
Melinda Wolbransky ◽  
Kirk Heilbrun
Keyword(s):  
Plea Bargaining ◽  
Defense Attorneys ◽  
Evidence Strength ◽  
Criminal Defense

Democratic Justice

Free Justice ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 86-116
Author(s):  
Sara Mayeux
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Public Defender ◽  
Way Of Life ◽  
Defense Attorneys ◽  
The Public ◽  
Criminal Defense ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Constitutional Right ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Cold War

In contrast to earlier periods when elite lawyers expressed skepticism of the public defender, this chapter describes the Cold War moment when elite lawyers, like the New York lawyer Harrison Tweed, celebrated the public defender as central to the “American way of life.” By the 1950s, lawyers and political leaders touted the rights that U.S. Constitution afforded to criminal defendants as hallmarks of democracy. These rights were thought to exemplify democratic regard for the individual, in contrast to the state-dominated show trials that symbolized totalitarianism. Within this context, criminal defense attorneys were rhetorically celebrated and the public defender was reframed from a harbinger of socialism into an anticommunist figure. In 1963, the Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in Gideon v. Wainwright, further enshrining the constitutional right to counsel. Gideon held that the Sixth Amendment requires states to provide counsel to indigent defendants in all serious felony trials. The decision was celebrated and chronicled in the widely read book by journalist Anthony Lewis, Gideon’s Trumpet, and the Ford Foundation announced ambitious plans for a nationwide initiative to expand public defender offices.

Introduction

2019 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Vanessa A. Edkins ◽  
Allison D. Redlich
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Public Policy ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Current System ◽  
Social Science Research ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Plea Bargaining ◽  
The United States ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
Defense Attorneys

While a great deal of psycho-legal research has focused on the trial process—and the decision making of jurors and juries, in particular—trials are not reflective of the current system of justice in the United States. Instead, we find ourselves within a system of pleas (Lafler v. Cooper, 2012) with a scarcity of social science research available to guide us. With this volume, we hope to integrate the current plea bargaining research that informs the field, from charging and defendant decision making, to attorney influences, to the ramifications at the larger system and institutional levels. Spanning multiple disciplines, the research and theories related to plea bargaining have much to contribute to public policy and to changes that individual actors (e.g., defense attorneys, prosecutors, and judges) may decide to incorporate in their daily interactions within our system of pleas.

Gauging the Strength of Evidence Prior to Plea Bargaining: The Interpretive Procedures of Court-Appointed Defense Attorneys

1997 ◽  
Vol 22 (04) ◽  
pp. 927-955 ◽  
Author(s):  
Debra S. Emmelman
Keyword(s):  
Plea Bargaining ◽  
Defense Attorneys ◽  
Daily Routines ◽  
Strength Of Evidence

An important debate among court observers is whether plea bargaining undermines the ideals of justice. This article presents findings that may rec-oncile some inconsistent research conclusions. It describes how, prior to plea bargaining, one group of court-appointed defense attorneys gauges the strength of evidence through a tacit, taken-for-granted process that emulates trial proceedings: based on their understanding of evidence in the legal community, defenders imagine a courtroom dialogue wherein the prosecution and defense take turns presenting their cases in front of a judge and jury. At issue throughout the dialogue is whether or to what extent information is suffident, legal, and persuasive enough to convict the defendant. Because the process is part of the defenders' ongoing and unspoken daily routines, it may elude unsuspecting investigators. Ironically, this means not only that some analysts may inappropriately conclude that legal ideals play no role in plea bargaining but also that others may ingenuously assume that such behavior is more ethical than it actually is.

A System of Pleas

2019 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Social Science ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Social Science Research ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Plea Bargaining ◽  
Supreme Court Justice ◽  
Defense Attorneys ◽  
Majority Opinion

The title of this work references a majority opinion from Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy noting that the U.S. criminal justice system is no longer focused on trials but has become a system of pleas; that the system’s processes and protections need to adapt from trial protections to plea protections. Social science research likewise needs to expand beyond the courtroom and the jury room to address the multitude of factors involved in plea decisions and the influences at work on the various legal-system players (e.g., defendants, defense attorneys, prosecutors). This work is both a culmination of the current state of plea bargaining research and a call to action for future researchers. All of the areas addressed—from innocents pleading guilty, to prosecutors charging decisions, to mass incarceration and felon disenfranchisement—merge to create a picture of the current U.S. criminal justice system as it really is, and how social science can move forward within it.

Defense Attorneys and Plea Bargains

2019 ◽  
pp. 37-55 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kelsey S. Henderson
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Plea Bargaining ◽  
Psychological Processes ◽  
Defense Attorneys ◽  
Adversarial System ◽  
Federal Standard ◽  
Extralegal Factors ◽  
The U.S

In the landmark Gideon v. Wainwright decision (1963), the U.S. Supreme Court established the federal standard of appointed counsel for indigent defendants as fundamental to fairness. This right has been upheld throughout the years and is central to our adversarial system. The attorney’s responsibility is to zealously serve as the accused’s strongest counselor and advocate. In the context of plea bargaining, the attorney can assist the defendant in making a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent plea decision. The attorney may act as a “debiaser,” counteracting irrationality on the defendant’s part. However, research suggests structural influences and psychological processes may impede the role of the attorney. This chapter explores how legal and extralegal factors affect attorneys’ plea decision-making, which ultimately influence defendants’ decisions to waive or invoke their right to trial.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document