IN THE CASE OF STATON
As I have previously mentioned, it would seem necessary to have a reasonably informed public about matters of possible importance
to them. Since I am a criminal defense attorney, I try to stay informed of criminal developments coming out of our Supreme Court which may have some relevance.
In the case of Staton, the Iowa Supreme Court held that a defendant being sentenced after a guilty verdict does not have the right to say, at sentencing, that he was offered a lower charge and fewer years in prison if he had just plead guilty pursuant to a plea offer. Obviously, the prosecutor was willing to allow the defendant a lesser charge and a less harsh penalty if he would have plead guilty so the State would not have had to go to the time, trouble, and expense of a trial; after all there is even a rule of procedure that says you can't mention plea discussion or offers in any preceding, criminal or civil. It has been encoded.
All well and good you say. However, there needs to be some discussion. I expect 98% of all criminal cases are resolved by a plea of guilty, normally to a lesser charge or fewer charges than were filed. So, if you get charged with 18 traffic violations and the deal is if you plead guilty to nine of them, nine will be dismissed, you take the offer. If every criminal case that is filed were to be tried, every one, the judicial system would break down in a day. What I mean is that if every person charged with a crime when appearing in court said not guilty it would be over - finished - done.
So what our legislators and courts have done is to make sure that the process is correctly administered; that is ensuring plenty of convictions with the minimum amount of work: It is a matter of handling the thousands of cases that come before the courts. And law enforcement understands this so they file every charge they can think of when they take you to jail.
If you have committed some heinous crime (such as driving while barred) but the prosecutor offers to reduce the charge to a simple misdemeanor which carries 30 days in jail instead of two years in prison and you refuse and are convicted and the prosecutor gets up before the court and tells the judge you are a risk to society and should go to prison for two years or at least spend six months in county, you are not allowed to tell the judge that the prosecutor didn't think you were such a bad fellow when he previously offered a lesser charge and less time incarcerated. On the surface of things, this doesn't seem very fair.
The rationale of the Court goes like this: "A contrary holding might have a chilling effect on plea offers; some prosecutors presumably would be deterred from extending a plea offer if the defendant in his allocution could later argue the plea offer supports a lighter sentence". This one statement of the Court holds a dozen different issues, none of which are addressed.
What happens is, if you continue to proclaim your innocence, which you certainly have the right to do, and are convicted regardless, you subject yourself to a harsher penalty than you were offered with a plea. Is there any question as to why 98% of all crimes are disposed of by plea? Efficiency is necessary. In the system we have built where the criminal law's primary function is to control the public, this is how it has to go. You are a bad guy if you commit a crime and a really bad guy if you go to trial.
Richard E H Phelps II
Mingo
