posted
If someone pleads "guilty" to, say, a murder charge, is there still a trial?
Or is that a silly question? Do they plead guilty at the trial or before, thus avoiding a trial. Is there a jury selected if it's known the defendant is going to plead guilty?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The SupremeCourt has ruled that jurors must vote separately upon the guilt phase and upon the penalty phase in trials in which the death penalty is a possible outcome. Which implies that the judge alone cannot impose death as a sentence. That being so, I suspect that if the death penalty is still an option -- ie hasn't been plea-bargained away -- a jury would have to be empanelled for the penalty phase of the trial. As in other penalty phase hearings, jurors would have to listen to testimony concerning both the aggravating and mitigating circumstances of the crime, then be sequestered to weigh the balance between the two before voting upon the penalty.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:If someone pleads "guilty" to, say, a murder charge, is there still a trial?
Technically, yes, it is a bench trial, but not like what you traditionally think of as a trial. A guilty plea includes the following elements: a) admission of guilt, b) waiver of rights, c) consent to conviction.
The judge still must convict. The prosecutor usually make a proffer, that starts something like "Your honor, had this case proceeded to trial, the evidence would have shown..." and then lists all the evidence. This presentation must include assertions that all the elements of the crime occurred. The defense will agree to the proffer, which means what the prosecutor proffered is entered as if it had been testified to. A judge may, at that point, reject the plea. Essentially, this is a bench trial at which the judge will determine two things:
1.) Was the guilty plea knowing, voluntary, and intelligently made. 2.) Did the prosecution prove its case (i.e., assuming the proffer is true, was the crime committed)?
quote:Do they plead guilty at the trial or before, thus avoiding a trial. Is there a jury selected if it's known the defendant is going to plead guilty?
In Virginia, a defendant may plead guilty at any time before the jury returns a verdict. This is often done when the defense wants to try something that probably won't work. They'll put their case on, read the jury (always an iffy proposition) and then plead guilty if they think the jury didn't buy it. This is done because juries in Virginia also return a sentence, this sentence is usually harsher than what a judge will give, and the judge will usually follow the jury's recommendation. With a guilty plea, no jury sentence is returned.
Even more common is a guilty plea immediately after a motion to strike the prosecution's case. This is done when there's a chance to get out of conviction on a legal technicality that a jury just won't understand or by. If the judge goes for it, the defendant is innocent. If not, the defendant pleads and faces the judge.
If it's known the defendant will plead before the trial is docketed for jury, know jury will be selected. In the circuit I interned in, if a jury trial is scheduled, the plea is taken in chambers. If accepted, the jury pool will be dismissed for the day.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:As in other penalty phase hearings, jurors would have to listen to testimony concerning both the aggravating and mitigating circumstances of the crime, then be sequestered to weigh the balance between the two before voting upon the penalty.
This is the reason capital cases must be bifurcated - most aggravating factors are inadmissible in the guilt phase because they would unfairly prejudice the jury.
For example, admission of prior convictions is very tightly restricted at trial; most or all are admissible in the penalty phase.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not guilty. But Bruce pled "Guilty" and I just wanted to know if he would have had a trial or not. Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're fine saying he didn't have a trial - even though it's technically not true, it's how it's thought of and discussed even amongst lawyers.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
