I suppose I should have learned by now to expect the kinds of responses a couple of our stories got this week.
Frankly, I can understand why people would react to the Jose Valenzuela story and the notion that “it was time for Mr. Valenzuela to take an offer of time served, the first such offer he got” – even if he is innocent.
However, when they write, “There’s only one reason for Mr. Valenzuela to plead guilty to attempted murder–that being that he knows he’s guilty and that he and his attorney know that the DA could have additional evidence that would be more convincing to a jury than the first time around.”
Why is that? Mr. Valenzuela had a chance to get out of custody for the first time in four and a half years. He had certainty, now, of release. His first trial there was overwhelming evidence presented of his innocence from the inconsistent and often contradictory testimony of security guard Gabriel Bautista to the complete lack of blood found on Mr. Valenzuela, except his own blood, when there was literally blood all over the scene.
Then there was the poor work of the police to secure and preserve the scene, so that when detectives actually arrived, blood was cleaned up.
Wrote the commenter, “A few more weeks in jail is a small price to pay for an innocent person who ‘knows’ that the next trial will exonerate him.”
I suppose this is easy to write from the comfort of one’s own home, but the fact is that the first trial darn near exonerated him. He was acquitted by the jury of attacking the first victim. One juror held out for guilt on the attempted murder charge of the second victim. And the jury hung more evenly on assault charges on the second victim.
How could he know the next trial would exonerate him, when the first trial nearly exonerated him and all it did was buy him another 20 months in custody?
The fact is, if the prosecution had such a strong case on him, why would they walk him after four and a half years on a brutal and vicious attempted murder charge?
Earlier this week, one of our commenters wrote, “This GOPer cares about prosecutorial misconduct; but I care about criminal conduct even more.”
He should care about both; after all, if Mr. Valenzuela did it, someone is walking free that brutally stabbed two people.
In response to a later article on Thomas Matzat’s no-contest plea, another poster wrote: “Don’t you know that we’re supposed to just assume that everyone who cops a plea is innocent.”
This is our jumping-off point for this column. Of the 16 words written in that sentence, the word I want to flag is “assume.” I will submit that, in fact, the lesson is that we should never “assume” anything. That we should question and investigate. But making assumptions either way is dangerous and leads to errors in judgment.
Should we assume that someone who pleads no contest is guilty and that no innocent man would plead guilty to a crime that they did not comment?
Have we already forgotten about the story of former high school football star Brian Banks, who spent over five years in prison for rape. In May, a judge exonerated him.
As Rina Palta of KPCC wrote, “One of the hardest questions to answer about Banks’ case (and there are several) is why the then-17-year-old pled ‘no contest’ to the charges instead of fighting what folks are now saying was a porous case against him.”
The stunning thing is that research now suggests that innocent people who plead guilty to crimes they did not commit is quite common.
Ms. Palta cites a published article by Lucian Dervan, of Southern Illinois University’s School of Law, and Vanessa Edkins from Florida Institute of Technology, which was published on May 31, 2012. They refer to this situation as “plea bargaining’s innocence problem.”
The researchers “set up college students by enrolling them in a ‘logic’ study, administering a test and then accusing them of knowingly cheating on it. After being accused of cheating, individual students were offered two choices: if the student admitted they’d cheated, they would lose their promised compensation for participating in the study; if they didn’t admit they’d cheated and an academic review board found them guilty, they’d not only lose their compensation, but their faculty advisor would be informed and they’d be enrolled in a mandatory ethics course.”
They found that over half of the students who were wrongfully accused of cheating chose to plead guilty – 56.4% in the study.
As the researchers noted, the students “”simply wanted to go home,” much like criminal defendants who, while they may be innocent, choose to plead guilty for a lesser sentence that either sends them home right away (like probation) or sooner than if they fight their charge and lose (like in Banks’ case).”
Judge Lee Sarokin, whom we quoted extensively following the Banks exoneration, noted that intimidation by prosecutors and incompetence by defense attorneys are key culprits.
Wrote the retired judge in his essay, “Why Do Innocent People Plead Guilty?”, “The defendant, frightened, most often poor, uneducated, a minority member is advised that a trial is likely to end with a conviction and a long sentence, whereas a plea will guarantee a much shorter sentence. Despite his protestations of innocence, the defendant seeks guidance frequently from an over-worked, underpaid defense lawyer who would much prefer a quick deal rather than a long drawn out trial. Of course, not all defense counsel fit that description. Many do not, but even the best and most devoted are required to put this draconian choice to their clients – a guaranteed short sentence versus a potentially long one – possibly life in prison.”
But that explanation is too simple. Often times, the defense attorney is not overworked or incompetent.
Yolo County Public Defender Tracie Olson talked about the role that plea bargains play in wrongful convictions, and she related the story of Henry Alford.
She noted, “The evidence was strong but Henry said he was innocent. Henry, however, pled guilty to a charge of 2nd degree murder in order to avoid the death penalty.”
“Of course, I don’t know as I stand here today whether or not Henry was actually innocent,” she said. “However, I’ve been a criminal defense attorney in Yolo County since 1998, and I truly believe that innocent people have taken pleas because they felt they were in a situation like Henry’s.”
So, here you have the public defender, whom I do not believe anyone in Yolo County would characterize in a negative light from a competency standpoint, believing that innocent people have taken pleas because they did not want to risk the exposure of overly burdensome sentences.
Not everybody heeds the pressure to take a plea. The New York Times recently reported on the case of Shih-Wei Su, who spent 13 years in prison for the crime of attempted murder at the age of 17 in what was characterized as “a weak case based on conflicting eyewitness testimony after a pool hall shooting that injured two.”
At the age of 30 in 2003, Mr. Su won a reprieve as “a federal appeals court said that a prosecutor in Queens had lied and had tolerated lies by a witness in order to convict Mr. Su of attempted murder for a shooting at a pool hall.”
The New York Times in an October 2008 article reported that the court ruled that the prosecutor had 90 days to retry him or he should be released.
Instead, the prosecutor tried to play hard ball.
Mr. Su told the NY Times, “After the conviction was vacated, they brought me to Rikers Island, and the D.A.’s office sent my Legal Aid lawyer to tell me that they would nail me to the wall unless I made a deal.”
“Their offer was, ‘Plead guilty, you’ll get time served, you could walk out of here today,’ ” Mr. Su recalled. “I said no. They kept me in Rikers until the 90th day. Then they released me.”
Mr. Su did not take the plea offering from the prosecution, but could you really have blamed him if he had? Even after being called on it, that prosecution’s office still tried to play hardball.
In fact, the NY Times reports that 80 convictions from Queens have been overturned by appeals courts for prosecutorial misconduct. Despite this, the DA’s office had taken no disciplinary action.
Mr. Su’s attorney has argued that the DA’s pattern of ignoring such misconduct has set the stage for Mr. Su’s wrongful conviction. Mr. Su himself was rewarded a $3.5 million settlement one of the largest in New York history.
Against this backdrop, if an attorney has a chance to walk his or her client out the door of the courthouse a free man, or woman – innocent or not, I think it would be incompetent of the defense attorney not to take that offer, sad as it may be.
It is not that I believe that most people who take a plea are innocent, it is simply that we should not stop evaluating and questioning a case just because they have. If you do not see that by now, you have learned nothing from what has transpired in the last decade of America’s legal system.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]”This GOPer cares about prosecutorial misconduct; but I care about criminal conduct even more.”[/quote]
[quote]In fact, the NY Times reports that 80 convictions from Queens have been overturned by appeals courts for prosecutorial misconduct. Despite this the DA’s office had taken no disciplinary action.[/quote]
I think that these two quotes illustrate an important difference of viewpoint between myself and the first author. I see prosecutorial misconduct as criminal activity with just as much possibility to ruin innocent lives as I do the activities of “street criminals” only with the full power of the state behind the perpetrators, and little to no possibility of being held responsible for their wrong doing.
guilty people also plead guilty, and do so frequently.
There will always be examples of people who falsely plead guilty but I would venture to say that’s very very rare. So bringing up a few cases means almost nothing.
vanguard: “If you do not see that by now, you have learned nothing from what has transpired in the last decade of America’s legal system.”
what do you know of the legal system? you haven’t passed the bar, your not a lawyer – just some liberal blogger sitting on the sidelines taking potshots at the DA/Legal system. So who are you?
nobody.
THere’s a button I bought, wear it with pride: “too bad those who know it all, can’t do it all.”
“There will always be examples of people who falsely plead guilty but I would venture to say that’s very very rare. So bringing up a few cases means almost nothing.”
You would venture to say it, but do you have data to support it? Increasing studies show it to be much more frequent than previously believed. And it makes sense and it’s even logical that if you have some facts that could be construed to show guilt, high exposure, and a reasonable offer, you might be best advised to plead guilty.
rusty, i cannot help but say that even one example of a person who falsely pleads guilty, for whatever reason, is disturbing to me. Just as even one innocent person being executed disturbs me.
Highbeam, so what’s the answer? Do we knock down the whole system because of a few examples? Please, tell me how you would fix it while balancing victim’s rights too.
“It is not that I believe that most people who take a plea are innocent, it is simply that we should not stop evaluating and questioning a case just because they have. If you do not see that by now, you have learned nothing from what has transpired in the last decade of America’s legal system.”
No one is saying that innocent people never take a plea. In the two local cases you’ve covered (Valenzuela and Matzat), you’ve tried to claim that they’re innocent and the cases the DA has brought against them are without merit. Even without the guilty or nolo pleas, your defense cases were weak.
The fact that they took pleas tend to contribute to the suggestion that they are guilty–most who do are–but no one stopped “evaluating and questioning” the cases because they did. They just came to a different conclusion than you did. There’s no reason to call people who disagree with you ignorant or stupid or uninformed.
I note that you tend not to claim that they’re innocent, only that the DA Is wrong in pursuing the case using so little evidence and “stacked charges.” And, you conclude with the claim that the guilty parties are still out there roaming the streets because of this failure of investigators and the DA to do honorable work.
Yet, if someone points out things that suggest the cases are stronger than you claim, you say they’re focusing on the wrong thing or that they’re acting as though no innocent person ever pleads guilty. In one of the two cases, when your reporting aimed at showing how weak charges are is observed as having an anti-DA bias, you call it a personal attack. These hardly are legitimate ways of carrying on a reasonable discussion.
Prosecutorial misconduct are crimes as well. Those charged with it are due the assumption of innocence. However, when DA’s plead guilty, it generally reflects the crooked reality of the situation. Listing a few examples of apparently innocent people choosing to plead guilty carrys little weight in the face of the evidence against our two local folks.
Today’s article does not support a conclusion that guilty pleas by innocents is anything but a remote occurrence, let alone a common one.
It was just pointed out to me that if you go to the national registry of exonerations ([url]http://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/browse.aspx[/url]) you can do a research and see that about 84 of 951 exonerations in the registry were the result of plea agreements.
That number may not seem a lot. But most plea agreements, the defendant is probably not going to seek exoneration given the length of time, court expense and shorter sentences of plea agreement. For example, Valenzuela would not have a reason to seek exoneration under most conditions.
So I completely disagree with anyone who says that guilty pleas by innocent is a remote occurrence.
“That number may not seem a lot.”
You’re right!
“There’s only one reason for Mr. Valenzuela to plead guilty to attempted murder–that being that he knows he’s guilty and that he and his attorney know that the DA could have additional evidence that would be more convincing to a jury than the first time around.”
You read this as “there’s only one reason that he COULD have pleaded guilty.” I meant it to mean that “there’s only one reason that he SHOULD have pleaded guilty.” The rest of my comments fall into that same theme.
If the case against him is so lacking because he is innocent, logic suggests the fact that he’s already endured 4-1/2 years in jail would strengthen his resolve to have a speedy trial and walk out a free and declared-innocent man. Why did he not choose that route?
“How could he know the next trial would exonerate him, when the first trial nearly exonerated him and all it did was buy him another 20 months in custody?”
I’m afraid that this speculative reasoning is too silly to take very seriously. But, you know that “near exoneration” isn’t like horseshoes and part of his 20 additional months came by his own choices.
How could he have overwhelming confidence that the next trial would exonerate him if he’s innocent? Because the first one exonerated him of the one identical, serious charge, because there’s no evidence against him, because he has a right to a fair trial and, of course, because he’s innocent.
How could he be concerned that he’d be convicted in the next trial? Perhaps because the evidence against him is stronger than the Vanguard reports and because he worries that a fair trial would find him guilty because he is.
Which situation would more likely result in a guilty plea to a lesser charge?
[quote]Wrote the retired judge in his essay, “Why Do Innocent People Plead Guilty?”, “The defendant, frightened, most often poor, uneducated, a minority member is advised that a trial is likely to end with a conviction and a long sentence, whereas a plea will guarantee a much shorter sentence. Despite his protestations of innocence, the defendant seeks guidance frequently from an over-worked, underpaid defense lawyer who would much prefer a quick deal rather than a long drawn out trial. Of course, not all defense counsel fit that description. Many do not, but even the best and most devoted are required to put this draconian choice to their clients – a guaranteed short sentence versus a potentially long one – possibly life in prison.”
But that explanation is too simple. Often times, the defense attorney is not overworked or incompetent.
Yolo County Public Defender Tracie Olson talked about the role that plea bargains play in wrongful convictions, and she related the story of Henry Alford.[/quote]
I love how the defense part in this phenomenon is played down/brushed aside. The fact of the matter is that defense lawyers very much play a part in trying to convince the defendant to take a plea rather than be put to the trouble of a trial…
[quote]It was just pointed out to me that if you go to the national registry of exonerations you can do a research and see that about 84 of 951 exonerations in the registry were the result of plea agreements. [/quote]
Out of how many cases plea bargained? IN other words, what percentage of plea bargained cases are cases in which an innocent person pleaded guilty?
“If the case against him is so lacking because he is innocent, logic suggests the fact that he’s already endured 4-1/2 years in jail would strengthen his resolve to have a speedy trial and walk out a free and declared-innocent man. Why did he not choose that route?”
But why? He’s got a life to live. He’s a young man. He’s been in long enough . He was offered a chance to walk. His attorney kicked butt the last time, and it still wasn’t enough – whose to say it would be the next time?
I think you have a faith in the system, that someone in Valenzuela’s position simply would not have.
“I love how the defense part in this phenomenon is played down/brushed aside. The fact of the matter is that defense lawyers very much play a part in trying to convince the defendant to take a plea rather than be put to the trouble of a trial… “
I agree. But I have had no less than ten conversations with defense attorneys who recommended their clients take a plea even though they felt they were innocent you have to weigh the offer against the exposure and the probably that a jury will not see it your way.
As person put it, there is a trial tax–go to trial and you get a much longer sentence.
“Out of how many cases plea bargained? IN other words, what percentage of plea bargained cases are cases in which an innocent person pleaded guilty?”
How many would it take until you said it was two much?
Maybe the solution is DA’s shouldn’t offer plea bargains if the innocent sometimes plead guilty to get a leaner sentence. That would solve the problem, an all or none trial and we wouldn’t ever again have to worry about an inncent person taking a plea.
Now we need to save people that don’t even have the capability to deny their own involvement in criminal activity? Paallleeese.
Talk about nanny state!
Where does this lead? We have to change all of our laws and legal proceedings to discount EVERYTHING that ANYONE says because they may by too confused and incapable of representing the truth and facts?
I don’t have any problem with agitation to demand adequate evidence and to prevent prosecutorial misconduct, but to agitate that we cannot trust admissions of guilt… that is just taking things too far. The accused are read their Miranda Rights.
[quote]”That number may not seem a lot.”[/quote]And, it isn’t. My point, exactly. In fact, the numbers you’ve used overstates your case (see below).[quote]”But most plea agreements, the defendant is probably not going to seek exoneration given the length of time, court expense and shorter sentences of plea agreement. For example, Valenzuela would not have a reason to seek exoneration under most conditions.”[/quote]None of this is true, although a guilty defendant certainly would use this logic. And, Mr. Valenzuela had all the reasons in the world to seek exoneration–how can you say that being declared innocent rather than guilty is not a reason?![quote]”It was just pointed out to me that if you go to the national registry of exonerations you can do a research and see that about 84 of 951 exonerations in the registry were the result of plea agreements.”[/quote]And, upon doing so, one will find that even this small number of 84 is misrepresented in today’s article.[quote]”[u]False Confession[/u] (FC)—The exoneree falsely confessed if (1) he or she made a false statement to authorities which was treated as a confession, (2) the authorities claimed that the exoneree made such a statement but the exoneree denied it, or (3) the exoneree made a statement that was not an admission of guilt, but was misinterpreted as such by the authorities.”[/quote]So, a “false confession” is not necessarily a confession in the terms that we’re now using it, an intentional act of confessing to the crime.
Furthermore, the 84 “false confessions” sometimes have not a thing to do with pleading guilty, which, of course, is what you’re contending (“were the result of plea agreements”).[quote]”[u]Exoneration[/u]—A person has been exonerated if he or she was convicted of a crime and later was either: (1) declared to be factually innocent by a government official or agency with the authority to make that declaration; or (2) relieved of all the consequences of the criminal conviction by a government official or body with the authority to take that action. The official action may be: (i) a complete pardon by a governor or other competent authority, whether or not the pardon is designated as based on innocence; (ii) an acquittal of all charges factually related to the crime for which the person was originally convicted; or (iii) a dismissal of all charges related to the crime for which the person was originally convicted, by a court or by a prosecutor with the authority to enter that dismissal. The pardon, acquittal, or dismissal must have been the result, at least in part, of evidence of innocence that either (i) was not presented at the trial at which the person was convicted; or (ii) if the person pled guilty, was not known to the defendant, the defense attorney and the court at the time the plea was entered. [b]The evidence of innocence need not be an explicit basis for the official action that exonerated the person.[/b][/quote]So, factual innocence is only one of many reasons that are included in this most broad definition of “exoneration.”
[quote][u]Exoneree[/u]—A person who was convicted of a crime and later officially declared innocent of that crime, [b]or relieved of all legal consequences of the conviction because evidence of innocence that was not presented at trial required reconsideration of the case.[/b] [/quote]So, a person is termed an “exoneree” if errors or inadequate defense or unknown exculpatory evidence was not presented at trial and a new trial would be required.
[quote]”How many would it take until you said it was two much?”[/quote]One is too much. But, shit happens. And there’s no convincing evidence that the two cases under discussion involved anything resembling false confessions/guilty pleas.
(Is it a fact that the Matzat case was resolved by a nolo plea rather than a guilty plea. It seems ultra-kind for the DA to accept that in light of the mild punishment being imposed. Is there more to this than meets the eye?)
And, again, why do you keep referring to an Alford Plea in relation to these cases? Are you ever going to explain your reason for using that term in connection with the Valenzuela plea deal?
“[b]Yes Folks, Innocent People Plead Guilty – And they Do So Frequently[/b]”
The NOAA website says that 400 people a year get struck by lightning….
[quote]”But I have had no less than ten conversations with defense attorneys who recommended their clients take a plea even though they felt they were innocent you have to weigh the offer against the exposure and the probably that a jury will not see it your way.”[/quote]David, what do you expect defense attorneys to say? Please don’t suggest that you’re so naive.[quote]”I think you have a faith in the system, that someone in Valenzuela’s position simply would not have.”[/quote]It’s impossible to know what Mr. Valenzuela’s view would be on this. I’d think, given his very positive experience in the first trial and his satisfaction with his attorney and the fact that his defense was being financed by the system, that he’d have some faith in the system.
I’m pretty sure that I have at least somewhat more confidence in the system than my honorable friend, DMG.
And what about judicial intimidation? That also exists. I have sat in several settlement conferences where the judge was quite beligerant and threatened my client with substantial jail time if he didn’t settle, even though the judge knew nothing about the facts of the case and even though my client had an excellent defense. One of our problems is that more than 90% of our judiciary are either former deputy district attorneys (the vast majority) or are former corporate or insurance defense counsel. They bring an “institutional” mindset to the process and they are often perfectly willing to look the other way when prosecutorial misconduct occurs. The same misinformation that causes the working poor to identify at their own expense with their “betters” who then become even wealthier because of their special access to policy makers and market information motivates our jurors to believe in the authorities that govern them without question when, in fact, a lot of ulterior motives, if not outright corruption, is the underlying motivation for the actions of our government officials. We as citizens must be ever vigilant about protecting our rights, instead of unquestioningly assuming that what our authorities say is true or correct. As citizens, we must investigate, examine and criticize our authorities if we wish to remain a free and democratic society. When we permit our system to infringe on these liberties by placing innocent persons in a situation where they feel they have no choice but to plead “no contest,” or even guilty, then we are all at risk of further exploitation and oppression.
Just Saying: I believe the pleas are coded “P” not “FC”
Further: “David, what do you expect defense attorneys to say? Please don’t suggest that you’re so naive.”
Generally I have found attorneys to be extremely forthcoming with me. They will tend to tell me when the case is interesting and routine. For the most part they have been quite accurate – every so often a case they think is interesting ends up a dud.
In terms of pleas, I don’t generally get attorneys walking up and talking about pleas, when they volunteer that they felt the client was innocent but that they were facing x-amount of exposure, I tend to listen because they didn’t have to say anything at all. Naive? I think I have a good relationship with a number of them and in my experience they are pretty honest about their cases.
[quote]”I believe the pleas are coded ‘P’ not ‘FC’.” [/quote]Sorry, you’re way beyond me here. Please help.
You wrote that Mr. Matzat pleaded “no contest” to a single charge and the DA agreed to dismiss the remaining charges (4 felonies and 15 misdemeanors, according to the [i]Enterprise[/i]).
You wrote that Mr. Valenzuela agreed to something that “resembles an Alford Plea” on “a single count of attempted murder” which you later wrote was for an “assault charge” instead.
Please clarify what the two folks under discussion pleaded and, for the sake of enlightenment, what “P” and “FC” stand for.
We’ll never agree on whether these two are innocent and there’s no way to history ever can provide an answer since the trial process was short-circuited by the pleas. But, it would be good to know the scoop about the pleas that ended everything.
That’s another thing. Prosecutors often “stack the deck” on a defendant by alleging multiple counts for a situation where, if one of those counts is not true, none of those counts is in fact true. This puts a lot of pressure on a person to plead “no contest” or guilty in a situation where, in fact, that person is innocent on every charge.
I worked on a case where my clients were charged with dozens of building code violations so that they would move off their property which also served as a boarding house for mentally disabled and low income persons. Never mind that all of the alleged violations occurred fifty years before at a time when those very same building codes had not yet been adopted. And never mind that the residence was located in the middle of nine acres that a prominent developer wanted to subdivide for his home-building project. And never mind that the home builder was a big contributor to the District Attorney’s election campaign. And never mind that these developers paid lots of money for the development of schools and other public facilities that would be part of this development. And never mind that a very large source of the D.A.’s victim restitution fund money was coming from persons like my clients who got in the way of such building developments and then pleaded no contest to one or two of the alleged infractions and pay $40,000 in restitution rather than be convicted of dozens of building code violations and serve time in prison. And never mind that the County’s building code enforcement division was operating a supposed non-profit organization known as the .
(continued from previous comment) Red Tag Breakfast Club – an ostensibly non-profit and charitable organization but where the inspectors raised their money at the building sites in exchange for favorable treatment of the inspected party, or even by accepting donations over the counter at the building department – ostensibly as donations to the Breakfast Club’s annual golf tournament held for developers. And never mind that the County’s consultant on the matter testified under penalty of perjury that $500,000 had gone unaccounted for when the Red Tag Breakfast Club’s financial accounts were audited. And never mind that the secretary of the County Supervisor who was in possession of files that would incriminate the County in these matters “accidentally” threw out all the files one month after they were subpoenaed from her. And never mind that the largest newspaper in the area was reluctant to publish any news of these matters because that same consultant had worked on that newspaper’s own reorganization just a year or two before during which many editors and reporters had their jobs on the line. And never mind that the federal district court judge in the lawsuit looked other way when evidence was destroyed. And never mind that the three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that heard the appeal of the dismissal didn’t seem to care that evidence was destroyed or that building code inspectors were being used as a means for gaining entry to private residences by criminal law enforcement investigators in contravention of restrictions imposed on such activity by the Fourth Amendment. Never mind these things. Multiple counts are scary, even if untrue.
[quote]TORRANCE, Calif. — An 82-year-old Southern California career thief is out of prison and allegedly back to her old tricks.
The Daily Breeze (bit.ly/Pw6T57) says Doris Thompson, who has a 21-page rap sheet dating back to 1955, has been arrested for a string of burglaries at doctors’ offices in Torrance.
Investigators say she’s netted $17,000 since March.
Eighteen months ago, the 5-foot-3 woman pleaded guilty to burglary and she was sentenced to prison. She thanked the judge, saying she wanted to serve the full three years in prison, where she expected to die.
But she didn’t die, and was released on parole in November.
A Torrance police detective recognized her on surveillance video from the latest burglaries and she was arrested Thursday at a motel.
Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/08/31/4776670/82-year-old-burglar-out-of-prison.html#storylink=cpy%5B/quote%5D
It is off topic but this is an example of one of those individuals that is to old to reoffend. This is why I don’t buy into this reasoning.
[quote]An 82-year-old Southern California career thief is out of prison and allegedly back to her old tricks. [/quote]
So do you really believe that we should base policy that costs millions of dollars yearly on a quirky anecdote about one 82 year old, or do you think it might be reasonable to use a more data driven approach ?
I think it would be more reasonable to dramatically lower the cost of incarceration and not let criminals roam among us.
Do you really think that we need to lock up 82 year old women who probably just want to be taken care of during the remainder of the few years left. I believe that this is at the heart of Elaine’s comments about turning out the elderly so as not to have to provide medical care. Can we really not find a better way of protecting both these individuals and society as a whole than incarceration ?
Today’s article does not support a conclusion that guilty pleas by innocents is anything but a remote occurrence, let alone a common one.
Between 1% and 15% of people pleading guilty are innocent. With over 7 million people either in prison, jail, on probation or on parol the occurrence of innocent people pleading guilty isn’t so remote.
Rusty 49 your comments seem to suggest that if defendants are treated fairly then victims will suffer. You ask what should be done-do you really have no ideas at all to make a fairer system or do you just not want to change the status quo?
Maybe, to have a system with less false confessions, we can start by not allowing the police to lie about the evidence they have against a defendant. Telling defendants that someone has come forward with evidence when there is none shouldn’t be allowed. Neither should questioning someone for 20 hours until they confess. Prosecutors shouldn’t be allowed to stack charges and sentencing needs to be reformed so there is not a threat of going to prison for dozens of years for minor crimes.
“I think it would be more reasonable to dramatically lower the cost of incarceration and not let criminals roam among us.”
You’re talking about basing a policy on an anecdote that’s an anomaly. I think you can derive individual sentencing policies that will deal with that issue.
[quote]dmg: I agree. But I have had no less than ten conversations with defense attorneys who recommended their clients take a plea even though they felt they were innocent you have to weigh the offer against the exposure and the probably that a jury will not see it your way.[/quote]
Or the defense attorney encourages the defendant to take a plea bc it saves the defense attorney the work of having to go to trial…
“
Or the defense attorney encourages the defendant to take a plea bc it saves the defense attorney the work of having to go to trial…”
I’m pretty sure that happens, but I have not seen it in this county.
[quote]I’m pretty sure that happens, but I have not seen it in this county.[/quote]
I’m sure you don’t think you have…
My friend entered into a plea bargain because he sold his home, spent $130,000 in attorneys fees, and had no money left to fight. Now the terms of his plea have changed, and there is absolutely no recourse for him. He has no money left to fight it. He chooses to just live with it. After a while, you have to come to terms with the fact that your friends and loved ones know your character, know you are innocent. No one else matters. Of course, if he was on death row, it would be different. But he is out of jail, so that’s what is most important. I would never advise anyone to accept a plea bargain.
In i were a completely innocent person being told by my attorney to plead guilty to something about which I wasn’t involved, I’d be into the judge reporting inadequate counsel. The fact that you report “no less than ten conversations with defense attorneys” who encourage innocent defendants to plead guilty simply is terrifying and one of the biggest failings of our justice system the Vanguard ever has reported.
How many of these attorneys have been sued or been used as an “inadequate counsel” appeal?
You make it sound as though it’s acceptable and common for defense attorneys to send a defendant in front of a judge to lie, to provide enough phony detail about the crime to convince the judge that the accused really did something he didn’t do before the judge buys the guilty plea and agrees with the plea sentence.
Please provide the names of these attorneys who think it’s okay to ship innocent people to prison because of innocent “exposure” and a conviction that the jury system will convict rather than exonerate innocent people. It will be a public service for the Vanguard to expose them so we can avoid them if we’re ever arrested for something we did not do.
Can we assume that none of the people who confessed to these transgressions serve as public defenders? For it’s the poor, the ignorant, the mentally challenged and other minorities who are most likely to fall for lying in order to plead guilty to something for which they’re not guilty.
These pariahs are much worse than the attorneys who aggressively prosecute people who they are convinced are guilty. They at least are far more immoral.
“My friend entered into a plea bargain because he sold his home, spent $130,000 in attorneys fees, and had no money left to fight. Now the terms of his plea have changed, and there is absolutely no recourse for him. He has no money left to fight it. He chooses to just live with it.”
This is a sad reality of plea bargains. When a defendant pleads guilty, the person gives up many things, including the rights to a trial and to appeal.
This might be just deserts for a person who agrees that he or she is guilty, except that much sentencing seems far more severe than it should be. But, for a defense attorney to recommend that her or his client essentially commit perjury by confessing guilt when there’s none is just sick and should be grounds for disbarment.