95% of Federal Cases end with Conviction???

Ardentfrost · 08-01-2006, 07:18 PM

Beating a federal rap not easy - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

No way they are THAT good. Please read the entire article, but I'm going to pick out a few sections that I think are especially relavent.

A high conviction rate might spell tough-on-crime for some, but not for attorney Paul Boas, who defended Schneiderlochner.

"A 90-plus percent conviction rate isn't something that should be applauded. I think it's something you should worry about," Boas said. "That's what you see in totalitarian regimes."

He said Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court in recent decades have made it easier for federal prosecutors. He doesn't blame prosecutors for using weapons they're provided, but he thinks it has skewed the federal court system.

"Taking away someone's freedoms should never be easy," Boas said. "Unfortunately, it's become way too easy."

Once defendants see the evidence, Buchanan said, most recognize they'd be better off pleading guilty.

Those found guilty at trial often face tougher sentences for causing the government to expend additional resources -- and for not taking breaks provided by federal sentencing guidelines and prosecutors for pleading guilty.

Former U.S. Attorney Frederick Thieman said defendants shouldn't face tougher sentences just because they went to trial.

"There's a ridiculous cost to exercising your constitutional right to go to trial," Thieman said. "The stakes are too high."

Buchanan said defendants always have the right to go to trial.

"If a defendant believes they did not commit the crime as charged, or if they believe the government cannot prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, then a defendant absolutely has the right to a jury trial," Buchanan said.

Those who lose shouldn't expect leniency after the fact, Buchanan said.

"They can't have it both ways," she said.

It does seem that even if someone didn't do something, when faced with the evidence that will be presented and a plea deal that will give you a fraction of the time spent in prison, they should probably just accept the plea.

That's some bad milk

SpicyMcVoodoo · 08-01-2006, 07:20 PM

Or maybe this just means federal prosecutors are very careful about whom they indict?

SpicyMcVoodoo · 08-01-2006, 07:25 PM

Former U.S. Attorney Frederick Thieman said defendants shouldn't face tougher sentences just because they went to trial.

Why not? Isn't that the point of a plea bargain? That it's a better deal than if you go to trial and lose? If people didn't have more to risk by going to trial, then why would anybody ever take a plea bargain? They could take their chances of being found innocent at trial, defense paid for courtesy of the federal public defender, and then if they lose, they just get the same punishment they would've gotten if they had been guaranteed guilty by pleading guilty.

Ardentfrost · 08-01-2006, 07:28 PM

If federal prosecutors have such a solid case, they shouldn't need the assistance they get.

If you stack in the favor of the prosecutor, then you've started down the road to ruin the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing. If people are pretty much FORCED to plead guilty, then no one is innocent.

SoFlaJDM · 08-01-2006, 07:31 PM

maybe at the federal level they do the salem witch trial method

SpicyMcVoodoo · 08-01-2006, 07:35 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

If federal prosecutors have such a solid case, they shouldn't need the assistance they get.

What assitance?

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

If you stack in the favor of the prosecutor, then you've started down the road to ruin the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing. If people are pretty much FORCED to plead guilty, then no one is innocent.

Unless you have a very rich defendant, the deck is always stacked in favor of the prosecutor, even at the state level.

Ardentfrost · 08-01-2006, 07:49 PM

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

What assitance?

Unless you have a very rich defendant, the deck is always stacked in favor of the prosecutor, even at the state level.

The plea bargain thing is one.. if that's their constant policy, that makes it attractive even if you did NOT commit the crime.

Another is the money involved. US Attorney's offices are FAR better equipped to send someone to jail than most people can defend against. State prosecutors might still have more money than most defendants, but at least it's not as much as it would be otherwise.

Federal Attorneys can use the FBI as their policing agency. I'd like to see you do anything to try to disprove something the FBI dug up on you (again, even if it isn't true)

Then you factor in how a lot of types of crime are being federalized, and you have an increased percentage of POSSIBLE criminals that have to fight for their freedom at the federal level.

Not only that, but more stuff is BECOMING criminalized (and by that, I mean prison-worthy). It's no longer where you have to be disruptive to society to be sent to prison, you can go for all kinds of shit... non-violent shit. All that has happened in the past 40 years.

It's possible that they only get cases where they REALLY know they're going to win... but I find it a lot more likely that they are simply forcing people to plea to things they may not have done.

SpicyMcVoodoo · 08-01-2006, 08:14 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

The plea bargain thing is one.. if that's their constant policy, that makes it attractive even if you did NOT commit the crime.

Another is the money involved. US Attorney's offices are FAR better equipped to send someone to jail than most people can defend against. State prosecutors might still have more money than most defendants, but at least it's not as much as it would be otherwise.

Federal Attorneys can use the FBI as their policing agency. I'd like to see you do anything to try to disprove something the FBI dug up on you (again, even if it isn't true)

Then you factor in how a lot of types of crime are being federalized, and you have an increased percentage of POSSIBLE criminals that have to fight for their freedom at the federal level.

Not only that, but more stuff is BECOMING criminalized (and by that, I mean prison-worthy). It's no longer where you have to be disruptive to society to be sent to prison, you can go for all kinds of shit... non-violent shit. All that has happened in the past 40 years.

It's possible that they only get cases where they REALLY know they're going to win... but I find it a lot more likely that they are simply forcing people to plea to things they may not have done.

So how do you fix this? The problems you're talking about seem unavoidable in our system.

SpicyMcVoodoo · 08-01-2006, 08:18 PM

Actually, wait a sec...is the deck really that stacked in favor of the prosecution in terms of resources? How well funded is the federal public defender? I'm guessing pretty well. I also know it's hard as fuck to get a job as a federal public defender, so those are some of the best attorneys around. Also, all of the same constitutional protections that apply to state defendants also apply to federal defendants. Maybe things aren't so stacked in favor of the prosecution.

Ardentfrost · 08-01-2006, 08:20 PM

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

So how do you fix this? The problems you're talking about seem unavoidable in our system.

Stop federalizing everything for one.

Ardentfrost · 08-01-2006, 08:23 PM

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

Actually, wait a sec...is the deck really that stacked in favor of the prosecution in terms of resources? How well funded is the federal public defender? I'm guessing pretty well. I also know it's hard as fuck to get a job as a federal public defender, so those are some of the best attorneys around. Also, all of the same constitutional protections that apply to state defendants also apply to federal defendants. Maybe things aren't so stacked in favor of the prosecution.

They're obviously going to have more money and better prosecuters. But according to the article, 95% (or is it 90%?) of anyone even accused of a crime enters a plea bargain. Their rights might not change, but the pressure does.

Phantom · 08-02-2006, 10:13 AM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

They're obviously going to have more money and better prosecuters. But according to the article, 95% (or is it 90%?) of anyone even accused of a crime enters a plea bargain. Their rights might not change, but the pressure does.

Part of the problem is the extremely low burden of proof fed prosecutors have to meet. Congress and Courts make sure it is exceedingly easy for these guys to get convictions. Fed prosecutors are generally pretty sharp guys, but a monkey could do most of the work - all the rules are in their favor.

Another part of the problem is tack-on crimes such as wire fraud or mail fraud. These are just used as pressure to show defendants wildly high possible sentences for sometimes harmless crimes. For example, if you are guilty of insider trading, they will hold the insider trading crime against you, but since you used to the telephone to call your broker - you've committed wire fraud. Add 20 years to that sentence now. This is complete bullshit IMO and needs to be stopped.

Once you combine a low burden of proof with easy tack-on crimes that can add dozens of years to possible sentences, people have no options left. It's too easy to convict people even if they haven't done anything wrong, and if they are convicted they will spend most of the rest of their lives in prison.

kinggovernor · 08-02-2006, 10:56 AM

Sign Up - Los Angeles Times
yet their funding is being cut

DosEquis · 08-03-2006, 01:56 AM

any time one gets accused it always feels like you are guilty until proven innocent.

7960 · 08-03-2006, 02:01 AM

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

Why not? Isn't that the point of a plea bargain?

Former U.S. Attorney Frederick Thieman said defendants shouldn't face tougher sentences just because they went to trial.

Uhh, if they go to trial they face the sentence that's appropriate for the crime (hopefully, but that's another matter). If they take the plea they get LESS than that. They don't face tougher sentences for going to trial, they get more lenient sentences for choosing not to. BIG difference.