Learn To Say "NO"
ARRAIGNMENTS / PLEAS
ARRAIGNMENTS AND PLEAS
Arraignments,
After an accused is arrested, they are brought before a judge in a proceeding known as an arraignment. There, the court will inform the defendant of the charges against them and ask whether the defendant pleads "guilty" or "not guilty" to the charges. If the accused cannot afford counsel, the court may appoint an attorney to represent them. Setting bail beyond the handling of formal charges, the judge must determine whether the accused may be released on their own recognizance, set bail, or send the accused to a detention center without bail. In making this determination, judges must determine whether an accused is likely to flee the jurisdiction or may pose a threat to society if left free to await trial.
In serious cases, or where the judge believes that a monetary incentive may help to secure the accused's attendance at later proceedings, the court will set bail, requiring the accused to post a bail-bond, cash or property to secure future attendance.
In many cases, where bail is set at a level beyond the accused's means, a defendant will use the services of a bail-bondsman, who will post bail money in exchange for a fee that is typically 15% of the posted amount. Thus, if the judge sets bail at $100,000.00, the bonding company would charge a $15,000 fee to post bond, in addition to requiring some collateral to help secure repayment in the event that the accused "skips bond" and fails to appear for later proceedings.
Possible Pleas
When asked to provide a plea at the arraignment, there are normally only two possible answers: "Guilty" or "Not Guilty." Even where an accused may ultimately acknowledge his guilt and plead guilty to certain charges, they ordinarily plead not guilty at this initial appearance in court. Absent a plea agreement that may provide more favorable terms for the accused, there is generally little incentive to confess guilt at the arraignment stage.
Indeed, while a "Not Guilty" plea can always be changed to "Guilty" after successful negotiations, the opposite is not true. By pleading guilty to a crime, a defendant waives a host of contitutional rights, including the right to stand trial, to confront his accusers, to demand proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and to a trial by jury where applicable. Even when one is inclined to plead guilty, there are alternatives that may be a bit more palatable for those who maintain their innocence, but fear an unfavorable result at trial.
If allowed to provide a "nolo contendere" or "no contest" plea, an accused does not actually admit guilt, but has decided not to contest the charges so as to avoid a trial on the merits. A similar variation of plea is known as an "Alford plea," in which the defendant maintains his innocence, but admits that the government has enough evidence to obtain a conviction. Though a bit more palatable in the court of public opinion, "Alford pleas" and pleas of "nolo contendere" are tantamount to guilty pleas in a court of law, where the accused will invariably be found guilty and sentenced accordingly.
In some cases, prosecutors will permit an accused to plead "not guilty," but to proceed upon an "agreed statement of facts" which are then read to the judge, who will decide the qustion of guilt on the basis of such facts. Typically, the prosecutor will read a recitation of facts taken from the statement of charges written by the investigating police officer or other law enforcement agent. Because these uncontested facts ordinarily establish guilt, defendants who plead "not guilty," but proceed on an agreed statement of facts are normally found guilty. But, in some cases, wise defense counsel may challenge the sufficiency of these facts and surprise the prosecution with arguments that actually secure acquittals.
Plea Bargaining
Like all court appearances, the arraignment provides prosecutors and defense counsel with an opportunity to discuss the merits of a case -- even if such discussions are off-the-record and are not actually a part of the arraignment process.
In some cases, charges may even be disposed of at this early stage, either because the prosecutor decides to voluntarily dismiss certain weak or insignificant cases, or where the parties have reached a plea agreement.
In the United States, prosecutors have wide discretion to dispose of many cases in which they feel that a trial may be unwarranted, or to dismiss certain charges in exchange for an accused's agreement to plead guilty to other crimes. They may also dismiss charges where they believe the evidence is lacking or even where the authorities have made critical errors in charging documents.
When prosecutors voluntarily dismiss some or all charges, they are said to "nol pros" these charges. In some cases, prosecutors may be persuaded to place the charges on an inactive docket of cases known in many jurisdictions as the "stet docket" where they may later be recalled for vigorous prosecution in the event of later criminal infractions.
Defendants who agree to have their cases placed upon the stet docket are, in effect, waiving a right to a speedy trial on such charges in the event that they are later resurrected. Criminal defense lawyers like to have charges against their clients "stetted" because, in practice, they are rarely recalled by busy prosecutors who seldom monitor such dispositions.
As more than 90% of all criminal cases in the United States are resolved through plea bargaining, any opportunity for the prosecution and defense lawyers to meet provides an opportunity for "plea bargaining."
In many cases, defendants will plead guilty to less serious offenses in return for the prosecutor dropping more serious charges or where the government agrees to recommend a more lenient sentence. Where defendants plead guilty at their arraignments, judges typically refrain from imposing their sentences at that time, preferring to schedule a sentencing hearing at a later date.
In felony cases, judges often prefer to await the results of a presentence report, prepared by the court's probation office, before imposing sentence.
Arraignments,
After an accused is arrested, they are brought before a judge in a proceeding known as an arraignment. There, the court will inform the defendant of the charges against them and ask whether the defendant pleads "guilty" or "not guilty" to the charges. If the accused cannot afford counsel, the court may appoint an attorney to represent them. Setting bail beyond the handling of formal charges, the judge must determine whether the accused may be released on their own recognizance, set bail, or send the accused to a detention center without bail. In making this determination, judges must determine whether an accused is likely to flee the jurisdiction or may pose a threat to society if left free to await trial.
In serious cases, or where the judge believes that a monetary incentive may help to secure the accused's attendance at later proceedings, the court will set bail, requiring the accused to post a bail-bond, cash or property to secure future attendance.
In many cases, where bail is set at a level beyond the accused's means, a defendant will use the services of a bail-bondsman, who will post bail money in exchange for a fee that is typically 15% of the posted amount. Thus, if the judge sets bail at $100,000.00, the bonding company would charge a $15,000 fee to post bond, in addition to requiring some collateral to help secure repayment in the event that the accused "skips bond" and fails to appear for later proceedings.
Possible Pleas
When asked to provide a plea at the arraignment, there are normally only two possible answers: "Guilty" or "Not Guilty." Even where an accused may ultimately acknowledge his guilt and plead guilty to certain charges, they ordinarily plead not guilty at this initial appearance in court. Absent a plea agreement that may provide more favorable terms for the accused, there is generally little incentive to confess guilt at the arraignment stage.
Indeed, while a "Not Guilty" plea can always be changed to "Guilty" after successful negotiations, the opposite is not true. By pleading guilty to a crime, a defendant waives a host of contitutional rights, including the right to stand trial, to confront his accusers, to demand proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and to a trial by jury where applicable. Even when one is inclined to plead guilty, there are alternatives that may be a bit more palatable for those who maintain their innocence, but fear an unfavorable result at trial.
If allowed to provide a "nolo contendere" or "no contest" plea, an accused does not actually admit guilt, but has decided not to contest the charges so as to avoid a trial on the merits. A similar variation of plea is known as an "Alford plea," in which the defendant maintains his innocence, but admits that the government has enough evidence to obtain a conviction. Though a bit more palatable in the court of public opinion, "Alford pleas" and pleas of "nolo contendere" are tantamount to guilty pleas in a court of law, where the accused will invariably be found guilty and sentenced accordingly.
In some cases, prosecutors will permit an accused to plead "not guilty," but to proceed upon an "agreed statement of facts" which are then read to the judge, who will decide the qustion of guilt on the basis of such facts. Typically, the prosecutor will read a recitation of facts taken from the statement of charges written by the investigating police officer or other law enforcement agent. Because these uncontested facts ordinarily establish guilt, defendants who plead "not guilty," but proceed on an agreed statement of facts are normally found guilty. But, in some cases, wise defense counsel may challenge the sufficiency of these facts and surprise the prosecution with arguments that actually secure acquittals.
Plea Bargaining
Like all court appearances, the arraignment provides prosecutors and defense counsel with an opportunity to discuss the merits of a case -- even if such discussions are off-the-record and are not actually a part of the arraignment process.
In some cases, charges may even be disposed of at this early stage, either because the prosecutor decides to voluntarily dismiss certain weak or insignificant cases, or where the parties have reached a plea agreement.
In the United States, prosecutors have wide discretion to dispose of many cases in which they feel that a trial may be unwarranted, or to dismiss certain charges in exchange for an accused's agreement to plead guilty to other crimes. They may also dismiss charges where they believe the evidence is lacking or even where the authorities have made critical errors in charging documents.
When prosecutors voluntarily dismiss some or all charges, they are said to "nol pros" these charges. In some cases, prosecutors may be persuaded to place the charges on an inactive docket of cases known in many jurisdictions as the "stet docket" where they may later be recalled for vigorous prosecution in the event of later criminal infractions.
Defendants who agree to have their cases placed upon the stet docket are, in effect, waiving a right to a speedy trial on such charges in the event that they are later resurrected. Criminal defense lawyers like to have charges against their clients "stetted" because, in practice, they are rarely recalled by busy prosecutors who seldom monitor such dispositions.
As more than 90% of all criminal cases in the United States are resolved through plea bargaining, any opportunity for the prosecution and defense lawyers to meet provides an opportunity for "plea bargaining."
In many cases, defendants will plead guilty to less serious offenses in return for the prosecutor dropping more serious charges or where the government agrees to recommend a more lenient sentence. Where defendants plead guilty at their arraignments, judges typically refrain from imposing their sentences at that time, preferring to schedule a sentencing hearing at a later date.
In felony cases, judges often prefer to await the results of a presentence report, prepared by the court's probation office, before imposing sentence.
