Plea Bargaining & Affirmative Defenses

Plea Bargaining

  • Overview of Plea Bargaining

    • Vast majority of cases resolved through plea bargaining rather than going to trial.

    • Defendant agrees to plead guilty to a less serious charge to receive a lesser sentence.

    • Agreements may involve the defendant pleading to some charges but not others.

    • Defendants may plead guilty at arraignment or later in the process, oftentimes off the record.

  • Plea Bargain Definition

    • What is a plea bargain?

    • A legal agreement in which the defendant agrees to plead guilty in exchange for a lesser charge or sentence.

  • Statistics and Trends

    • Approximately 90% of felony cases involve plea bargaining (Abrams, 2013; Motivans, 2019).

    • Noted increase in plea bargaining acceptance over the years.

  • Waiving Rights

    • Acceptance of a plea bargain requires the defendant to waive:

    • Right to a trial

    • Right to confront their accuser

    • Right to present evidence in defense (Costanzo & Krauss, 2021).

  • Reasons for Pursuing Plea Bargains

    • Efficiency and practicality:

    • Saves time, energy, and costs related to trials.

    • Helps navigate large volumes of cases in the judicial system.

    • Provides certainty in outcomes for all parties involved.

    • Caution advised despite commonality of plea agreements.

    • Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (1970): Plea acceptance is a grave and solemn act.

    • Importance of a knowing and voluntary process, although difficult to measure.

  • Procedures in Plea Bargaining

    • Defendants may sign agreements indicating:

    • Voluntary participation in the agreement.

    • Understanding of the charges they plead to.

    • Awareness of consequences (Costanzo & Krauss, 2021).

    • Judges typically read statements and verify understanding with defendants during plea acceptance, often in brief, 10-minute hearings (Redlich, 2016).

  • Prosecutor's Authority in Plea Bargaining

    • Prosecutors often hold significant influence in plea bargaining situations, typically 20% more likely to pursue plea deals (Pezdek & O'Brien, 2014).

    • Control over charging decisions and volume of charges.

    • Use of strategic overcharging to gain negotiation leverage (Blume & Helm, 2014).

    • First access to case information, including police and forensic reports.

    • Disparities in capacity due to higher case loads for defense attorneys (Costanzo & Krauss, 2021).

  • Trial Penalty and Decision-Making

    • Incentives to pursue plea bargains focus on avoiding trial uncertainty and potential harsher penalties, known as "trial penalty."

    • Potential for worse outcomes if going to trial versus accepting a plea deal.

    • Study by Kutateladze and Lawson (2018): 40% of defendants rejecting plea bargains were acquitted at trial.

    • Bushway and Redlich (2012) noted presence of trial penalties.

    • Circumstances affecting trial penalties can complicate decisions for defendants (Costanzo & Krauss, 2021).

    • Variables include defendant's understanding of law, prosecution's time limits, and individual traits of defendants.

  • Vulnerable Populations

    • Special concerns for plea bargaining involving mentally ill individuals and juveniles.

    • Children may lack the capacity to fully understand complexities of plea acceptance (Zottoli & Daftary-Kapur, 2019).

    • Innocent juveniles significantly more likely to accept plea bargains compared to adults (Helm et al., 2018; Redlich & Shteynberg, 2016).

  • Proposed Reforms for Juveniles

    • Conduct thorough judicial reviews of juvenile plea agreements (Costanzo & Krauss, 2021).

    • Implement mandatory trainings for judiciary to better negotiate pleas involving juveniles (Mallory et al., 2014; Woestehoff et al., 2019).

    • Complete abolishment of plea bargaining for this population.

  • Racial Disparities in Plea Bargaining

    • Berdejó (2018) investigated plea-bargaining outcomes for Black versus White defendants in Wisconsin.

    • Analyzed demographic data, charges, adjudication, and sentencing outcomes.

    • Findings indicated White defendants 25% more likely to receive charge reductions compared to Black defendants.

    • Misdemeanors: 44.8% (WD) vs. 30.1% (BD)

    • Low-level felonies: 49.8% (WD) vs. 30.1% (BD)

    • Serious felonies: 45.4% (WD) vs. 45.0% (BD).

  • Impact of Criminal History on Disparities

    • Charge reduction disparities influenced by defendants’ prior convictions.

    • White defendants without prior convictions received reductions in 63.9% of cases, while Black defendants in similar situations received reductions in 50.7% of cases.

    • Both races saw similar reductions (30.3% for WDs and 30.0% for BDs) for those with criminal histories.

    • Discussion on how racial bias can used as heuristic for recidivism risk by prosecutors.

  • Risk of Innocent Defendants Pleading Guilty

    • Serious concern that innocent individuals enter guilty pleas to avoid trial (Blume & Helm, 2014).

    • Zottoli et al. (2016) reported:

    • 23% of participants claimed innocence.

    • 11% admitted to pleading guilty for crimes not committed to evade trial risk.

Affirmative Defenses

  • Definition and Purpose of Affirmative Defenses

    • Involve introducing new evidence to argue that while the defendant engaged in alleged conduct, they had a legitimate reason or lacked intent.

    • Burden of proof lies with the defendant in these cases.

    • Examples include:

    • Self-defense (Justification, PL 35.15)

    • Extreme Emotional Disturbance (EED, PL 125.25 & 125.27)

    • Intoxication (PL 15.25) – incomplete defense, potential to mitigate charges.

    • Insanity (PL 40.15).

  • Relevance to Plea Bargaining

    • Strong affirmative defense evidence can:

    • Impact plea negotiation positively.

    • Lead to reduced charges (e.g., manslaughter instead of murder).

    • Serve as a basis for sentencing mitigation.

    • Result in acquittal or specific acquittals (e.g., insanity).

  • Self-Defense

    • Most recognized affirmative defense positing justifiable response to an imminent threat.

    • Requirements to establish self-defense (Costanzo & Krauss, 2021):

    • Threat of "imminent bodily harm."

    • Proportionality in response (reasonable force).

    • No alternative escape options; defendant believed retaliation was necessary.

  • Contexts of Self-Defense

    • Situations may arise in various conflicts; often in abusive scenarios.

    • Fatal self-defense can be difficult to prove if it occurs outside immediate danger (latent acts).

    • Research shows women killing abusers frequently occurs during violent confrontations (Holloway & Wiener, 2018).

  • Extreme Emotional Disturbance (EED)

    • Unique affirmative defense within New York, specifically addressing murder cases.

    • EED argues intense emotional reactions resulting in loss of control.

    • Aim of EED defense is reduced charges from murder to manslaughter.

  • Intoxication as Affirmative Defense

    • Not a complete defense but argues impairment due to substance use hinders criminal intent.

    • May serve as a negotiation tool for lesser charges or favorable plea outcomes.

  • Mental State Defenses in Court

    • Intersection of psychology and law; initiates with CPL 250.10 notice.

    • Notifies of intention to present psychiatric evidence.

    • If notice isn’t served, psychiatric evidence is inadmissible.

    • Defense typically hires experts for evaluations, with prosecution potentially hiring their own.