Plea bargaining and jury selection are critical parts of the criminal justice system. Each plays an important role in each way of coming to a conviction of a defendant. This paper will discuss different aspects of plea bargaining and jury selection that will look into their implications, dynamics, and ability to maintain justice and fairness within the criminal justice system. Looking further into plea bargaining, it can be described as the negotiations between prosecutors and defendants that occur outside of the courtroom in order to resolve the criminal charges. Many criminal trials are resolved due to a plea bargain, because the defendant will either plead guilty to a partial amount of the derived allegations or will give further information …show more content…
They have to take into account things like the quality of the evidence, possible sentencing guidelines, and the chance of a favorable judgment. This realization emphasizes how crucial knowledgeable legal counsel is for negotiating the complexity of plea deals and making sure the rights of defendants are upheld. Additionally, the chapter included insightful information on the tactics used during jury selection, a crucial stage of the legal process. I gained knowledge about the several aspects that lawyers take into account when choosing jurors, such as personal convictions, prior events that might affect how they see the case, and demographic traits. While trying to confront jurors who could be biased or inclined to favor the other side, attorneys look for jurors who are unbiased, understanding, and sympathetic to their client's point of view. Through the Venezuelan law, lawyers can influence the jury's makeup and improve their chances of obtaining a good result for their clients. The chapter's discussion of unconscious prejudice in jury selection is one especially fascinating …show more content…
The chapter demonstrates the complex interaction of legal, strategic, and ethical factors inherent in these procedures through its in-depth analysis. Plea bargaining is emphasized as a ubiquitous process for case settlement, accounting for almost 95% of criminal cases. This underscores the importance of plea bargaining in managing caseloads and accelerating case resolution. But this prevalence also brings up moral questions about the pursuit of justice, fairness, and defendants' rights, so legal experts must give it serious thought. In addition, the chapter clarifies the power struggles that occur during plea talks, especially the prosecutors' ability to use their discretion to pressure guilty pleas. Prosecutorial pressure notwithstanding, competent legal counsel is still necessary to protect the rights of defendants and maintain openness throughout plea bargaining discussions. The chapter also explores the complexities of jury selection, highlighting the legal strategies used by counsel to sway the jury's makeup in a way that increases the probability that their clients will receive a positive
Plea bargains are one of the most controversial debates that are discussed over the criminal justice court system. A plea bargain is when a defendant agrees to plead guilty to a crime and in exchange for something, for example a lesser sentence. There are three types of plea bargains. Charge bargaining is when a defendant pleads guilty to a less serious charge than the original charge. Count bargaining is when the defendant pleads guilty for some of the charge, but not all. Sentence bargaining is when the defendants get a lesser sentence than the maximum penalty. Through the course of this semester it has been brought to our attention, multiple times, about the problems plea bargaining has caused. Many defendants are pressured by those who surround them in
The book “12 Angry Men” by Reginald Rose is a book about twelve jurors who are trying to come to a unanimous decision about their case. One man stands alone while the others vote guilty without giving it a second thought. Throughout the book this man, the eighth juror, tries to provide a fair trial to the defendant by reviewing all the evidence. After reassessing all the evidence presented, it becomes clear that most of the men were swayed by each of their own personal experiences and prejudices. Not only was it a factor in their final decisions but it was the most influential variable when the arbitration for the defendant was finally decided.
This chapter is mainly devoted to the jury selection process and how it is taken care
Plea bargaining is a tool used in the court system for the benefit and detriment of the accused for numerous reasons. Additionally, the Crown will use plea bargaining for their benefit as well. For the purposes of this paper I intend to focus on the benefits and risks for an accused person to accept a plea bargain.
Despite the efforts of lawyers and judges to eliminate racial discrimination in the courts, does racial bias play a part in today’s jury selection? Positive steps have been taken in past court cases to ensure fair and unbiased juries. Unfortunately, a popular strategy among lawyers is to incorporate racial bias without directing attention to their actions. They are taught to look for the unseen and to notice the unnoticed. The Supreme Court in its precedent setting decision on the case of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), is the first step to limiting racial discrimination in the court room. The process of selecting jurors begins with prospective jurors being brought into the courtroom, then separating them into smaller groups to be seated in the jury box. The judge and or attorneys ask questions with intent to determine if any juror is biased or cannot deal with the issues fairly. The question process is referred to as voir dire, a French word meaning, “to see to speak”. During voir dire, attorneys have the right to excuse a juror in peremptory challenges. Peremptory challenges are based on the potential juror admitting bias, acquaintanceship with one of the parties, personal knowledge of the facts, or the attorney believing he/she might not be impartial. In the case of Batson v. Kentucky, James Batson, a black man, was indicted for second-degree burglary and receipt of stolen goods. During the selection of the jury the prosecutor used his peremptory challenges to strike out all of the four black potential jurors, leaving an all white jury. Batson’s attorney moved to discharge the venire, the list from which jurors may be selected, on the grounds that the prosecutor’s peremptory challenges violated his client’s Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to have a jury derived from a “cross-section of the community”(People v. Wheeler, 583 P.3d 748 [Calif. 1978]). The circuit court ruled in favor of the prosecutor and convicted Batson on both counts. This case went through the courts and finalized in the U.S. Supreme Court.
In America, every individual has the right to a fair trial, but how fair is the trial? When an individual is on trial, his or her life is on the line, which is decided by twelve strangers. However, who is to say that these individuals take their role seriously and are going to think critically about the case? Unfortunately, there is no way to monitor the true intentions of these individuals and what they feel or believe. In the movie, Twelve Angry Men, out of the twelve jurors’ only one was willing to make a stance against the others, even though the evidence seemed plausible against the defendant. Nevertheless, the justice system is crucial; however, it is needs be reformed.
At trial, your life is in the palms of strangers who decide your fate to walk free or be sentenced and charged with a crime. Juries and judges are the main components of trials and differ at both the state and federal level. A respectable citizen selected for jury duty can determine whether the evidence presented was doubtfully valid enough to convict someone without full knowledge of the criminal justice system or the elements of a trial. In this paper, juries and their powers will be analyzed, relevant cases pertaining to jury nullification will be expanded and evaluated, the media’s part on juries discretion, and finally the instructions judges give or may not include for juries in the court. Introduction Juries are a vital object to the legal system and are prioritized as the most democratic element in our society, aside from voting, in our society today.
In the United States, jury trials are an important part of our court system. We rely heavily on the jury to decide the fate of the accused. We don’t give a second thought to having a jury trial now, but they were not always the ‘norm’.
Otto, A. L., Penrod, S. D., & Dexter, H. R. (1994). The Biasing Impact Of Pretrial Publicity On Juror Judgments. Law and Human Behavior, 18(4), 453-469.
Bohm & Hanley (2011, pg. 309) openly classify three basic types of plea bargains. The first type of plea bargain is that defendants may be allowed to plead guilty to a lesser offense. Additionally, the second plea bargain allows, at the request of a prosecutor, a defendant that pleads guilty may receive a lighter sentence than what the crime originally called for. While, the third plea bargain allows defendants that plead guilty to one charge, get other charges that maybe brought later dropped as promise by the prosecutor. Indubitably, there are many factors prosecutors consider when deciding whether to offer a plea bargain and which of the three will be most beneficial. Bohm & Hanley (2011), states the three most notable factors are the seriousness
Plea bargaining is an agreement between the defendant and prosecutor wherein the defendant agrees to plead guilty to a particular charge in order to obtain some concession from the prosecutor in a criminal case, this might mean that the defendant will plead guilty to the original criminal charge to receive a relatively lenient sentence .
Plea bargaining is occasionally referred to as a form of “backdoor justice.” This is because plea bargains, which make up a vast majority of criminal proceedings, occur outside of the courtroom. They happen before or during a trial and often the reasons are unknown to anyone not directly involved in the case. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld plea bargaining as constitutional in Brady v. United States. This tactic can work to the advantage of criminal defendants and their attorneys, yet can also lead to certain abuses of the system on the part of the defense, each of which will be addressed in turn.
Plea-bargaining, used in ninety percent of criminal convictions in the United States criminal justice system today is the exchange of prosecutorial and legal concessions for pleas of guilty. Generally, a defendant in a criminal trial will enter “one of three pleas: guilty, not guilty, or nolo contendere.” Nolo contendere, otherwise known as no contest has the same effect as a guilty plea, which means the defendant is convicted and accepts punishment but does not admit guilt (lawyers.com). But in the plea-bargaining process, which aims to avoid trial because of costs and time, a defendant and his or her defense attorney may negotiate with the prosecutor for one of four different bargains. In the first type of deal, the prosecutor may reduce
There are several different court systems in the country, each with its own specific district and functions. Understanding how these court systems operate is essential for anyone involved in legal proceedings or interested in the justice system. In this essay, we will explore the different court systems in the United States, their districts, and how a case might progress through the courts, including possibilities such as plea bargains, adjudication, and appeals. We will also examine the historical context, key figures, and the impact of influential individuals in the field of law and the court system. The court systems in the United States can be broadly categorized into federal courts and state courts.
As the random selection of jurors is not generally done based on their gender or ethnic origin, there can be seen to be bias as the jury is not well-represented. Decisions made under external pressure, undue influence of judicial pressure in R v McKenna where the trial judge threatened to lock the jury members up for an entire night if they did not reach a verdict within 10 minutes, in which the jury returned the verdict of guilty against the defendant within 6 minutes but the convictions were fortunately quashed on appeal due to material irregularity during the trial. Private or secret communication between the jury and judge – affect judicial impartiality and openness and trust in jury and further the judiciary. Steps: Judges are responsible for matters of the law while the jury is responsible for matters of the facts of the case which must notably be guided and directed by the presiding judge of the case which allows the judge to intervene when the jury cannot properly convict the defendant due to the prosecution’s very weak evidence.