Showing posts from December, 2022
Earlier this week, we announced the creation of the Plea Bargaining Institute . Today, we share a recent article from one of the members of the Plea Bargaining Institute's Advisory Board - Rodney Roberts . Mr. Roberts is an exoneree and re-entry coach with the Innocence Project. The article discusses Mr. Roberts' decision to falsely plead guilty to an offense he had not committed after being given only 25 minutes to make the life altering decision. From the piece: When I was 24 years old, I was incarcerated in New Jersey’s Essex County jail for a crime I did not commit. For almost a year I was behind bars — charged but not convicted. With no money to afford a private attorney, I relied on the counsel of public defenders. Then I was faced with a decision — the most consequential decision of my life — and one that I should never have had to make. My attorney told me I could plead guilty to the crime I had been falsely accused of, kidnapping and sexual assault, in exchange for a
- Other Apps
Criminal justice watchdog Fair Trials has partnered with Belmont University College of Law Professor Lucian E. Dervan to launch the Plea Bargaining Institute (PBI). Launched today, PBI is a groundbreaking project that will provide a global intellectual home for academics, policymakers, advocacy organizations and practitioners working in the plea bargaining space. PBI will create an environment for the sharing of knowledge and research and for collaboration related to the reform of global plea bargaining practices. In the US, 95% or more of criminal cases are resolved through a plea of guilty. When someone pleads guilty they waive their right to a trial, something guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. While a plea bargain may offer advantages, such as a more lenient sentence, plea bargaining often involves coercive incentives that negatively impacts all defendants’ right to trial. Research indicates that these incentives can be so coercive that even innocent defendants plead guilty.
- Other Apps
In an opinion issued in late November 2022, Senior Judge Frederic Block of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York discussed the impact of disparities between sentences of co-defendants based on their decisions to exercise their constitutional right to trial when finding extraordinary and compelling grounds for a sentence reduction. The case involved two defendants seeking reduced sentences on compassionate grounds under the First Step Act. In granting the first defendant's motion, the court wrote: Courts have found that a gross disparity between sentences of co-defendants stemming from their choice to exercise or forgo their constitutional right to a trial is an extraordinary and compelling factor. See United States v. Ballard, 552 F. Supp. 3d 461, 468 (S.D.N.Y. 2021) (finding that a drastic sentencing disparity between co-defendants, which resulted in part from the fact that Ballard opted to exercise his right to trial when his co-defendant accepted a plea de