Justifiable suspicion of plea bargains.
We hear or read the results of deals that have been made, and the TV portrayal of the plea bargaining process usually involves a couple of lawyers yelling at one another for a few seconds, at which time the deal is made. In truth, plea bargaining is a serious business, and involves issues of law, facts, strengths and weaknesses in the prosecution and defense cases, and other matters of legal and economic expediency. In many cases there will be a single issue, for instance whether or not a search and seizure was done properly and in accordance with the law, and the outcome of a pretrial motion will give lawyers from both sides a good idea of the relative strengths and weaknesses of prosecution and defense cases. Sometimes a judge will refuse to accept the plea bargain, and in Nebraska judges are not bound by prosecutorial sentencing recommendations. The element of chance remains, up until the actual sentencing.
Sometimes there is public outrage over a plea bargain, since the media are never advised as to all of the decision-making factors in any case. And frequently- -whether we are talking about white collar crimes or drug deals or any other manner of charge- -lesser miscreants are given what appears to be "sweetheart deals" for the purpose of having them testify against the major players.
There are many reasons for this, not the least of which is the economic realty of the costs of prosecution.
Over the past few years we have seen several crooked CEOs of Fortune 500 companies lose jury trials and receive lengthy prison sentences for their roles in various white collar crimes. If you paid close attention to other officers for those companies who were also charged with crimes, you may have noticed that some of the "smaller fish" entered into plea agreements with the government and received relatively light sentences compared to the sentence given to their CEOs. At first glance this process seems logical rather than economical. However, there are more motives behind the government's plea bargaining process than turning less culpable criminals into witnesses. In state and federal courts, the plea bargaining process is often used as an economic tool to save the government costs associated with jury trials, expert witnesses, and appeals.
At the state level, many counties have budgets that provide a finite amount of money for criminal prosecution. Smaller counties throughout Nebraska have faced financial hardships due to the costs associated with complex criminal litigation. For example, a county in western Nebraska that has charged multiple indigent defendants with first-degree murder will not only have to pay for the prosecution of the case, but may also have to pay to defend the cases due to the indigent defendants' right to effective assistance of counsel. At first blush, this does not seem like a large cost, but when you factor in DNA experts, ballistics experts, and forensic psychiatrists for both the prosecution and the defense, the costs add up quickly. Don't forget the costs of seating a jury and all the overtime the government will be paying to law enforcement and other government employees who may be required to be deposed or testify in court. One big criminal case can and has bankrupted smaller counties in Nebraska.
The win/win idea of a negotiated settlement
In a criminal case this spills over into the county's budget even in Lancaster County. The plea agreement generally means less time in jail or prison for the defendant who agrees to cooperate. This means less tax payer dollars spent on incarceration. When you add in the savings of avoiding lengthy jury trials and costly appeals, the county saves several million dollars a year through plea bargaining. Perhaps even enough to pay for a fancy new jail over the period of several years.
