ACLU: Lawsuit Challenges Coercive Plea Bargaining Used to Punish Thousands of People for Exercising Constitutional Rights
The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Arizona filed a federal class action lawsuit challenging the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office (MCAO) policy of making plea offers “substantially harsher” if people assert their rights to a preliminary hearing or a trial. This “retaliation policy” coerces thousands of guilty pleas per year and violates the Constitution. Moreover, the retaliation policy applies regardless of the facts of any case, or even if the person might be innocent. Prosecutors also refuse to disclose any information beyond police reports — even if they have it — unless people give up their rights. In emails to public defenders, Maricopa County prosecutors openly acknowledge that one purpose of the policy is to avoid the work of reviewing evidence and preparing for trial.
MCAO enforces its retaliatory plea policy in the Early Disposition Courts (EDCs). These EDCs were initially created to quickly move cases involving minor offenses or drug possession through the system, with the stated goal of helping people in need of drug treatment and other services avoid convictions. It is during the EDC process that prosecutors threaten people with retaliation for exercising their rights and present people with a devastating choice — either waive your right to a probable cause hearing and accept the first guilty plea, all without access to the evidence against you, or MCAO will make any later plea “substantially harsher.”
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This is nothing new – DAs and judges have always been far more concerned with their conviction percentages and public defenders are basically just their errand boys.
I would like to hear a DA or judge explain how 10 years (for example) is perfectly fair if pleading guilty, but if taken to full trial the sentence must be higher. The most common excuse I’ve always heard is lack of remorse, but I have 2 problems with that. First, a person cannot be remorseful for a crime they didn’t commit and second, it touches on freedom of thought.
Another trick is to purposefully leave something out of the factual basis so a harsher sentence can be justified after conviction at full trial, going by the transcript of my own plea hearing and others I have read.
that is an incredible number, no wonder that someone remarked a few years ago that jury trials were a thing of the past.
Fewer than 3% of federal cases go to trial. I find it very cynical that a harsher sentence after trial is referred to as the “trial penalty.” They don’t blink an eye at the concept of a penalty for exercising a constitutional right.
Veritas.
Dear Ed C, I know first hand what happens if you go to trial in the federal system…you lose. Nearly all the rules and laws favor the feds. A citizen has nearly no chance at a fair trial. Then, upon a guilty verdict, you are punished way more harshly for exercising your rights (endowed by your Creator). And unless you beg for forgiveness at the alter of a fake God (ie the judge and prosecutor) for wasting their precious time, then they’ll call you unrepentant and hammer you so incredibly harsh that your sentence is reminiscent of communist Cuba and Russia just because you exercised rights that they are sworn to uphold. This is treasonous behavior in my humble opinion.