# Sentencing Power of Prosecutors Explain Why Innocents Plead Guilty

November 9, 2014

## A Recent New York Review of Books article highlights sentencing power of prosecutors, mandatory sentences, and harsh sentencing guidelines in explaining “Why Innocent People Plead Guilty”

In the latest issue of The New York Review of Books, U.S. District Court Judge Jed Rakoff provides a review of how prosecutors have come to possess virtually unfettered sentencing powers in our modern criminal justice system that is dominated by plea bargaining. In the article titled, “Why Innocent People Plead Guilty,” the judge discusses how innocents sometimes plead guilty as a result of unregulated prosecutorial powers:

> The Sixth Amendment guarantees that “in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury.” The Constitution further guarantees that at the trial, the accused will have the assistance of counsel, who can confront and cross-examine his accusers and present evidence on the accused’s behalf. He may be convicted only if an impartial jury of his peers is unanimously of the view that he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and so states, publicly, in its verdict.

> The drama inherent in these guarantees is regularly portrayed in movies and television programs as an open battle played out in public before a judge and jury. But this is all a mirage. In actuality, our criminal justice system is almost exclusively a system of plea bargaining, negotiated behind closed doors and with no judicial oversight. The outcome is very largely determined by the prosecutor alone….

> Until late last year, federal prosecutors were under orders from a series of attorney generals to charge the defendant with the most serious charges that could be proved — unless, of course, the defendant was willing to enter into a plea bargain. If, however, the defendant wants to plead guilty, the prosecutor will offer him a considerably reduced charge — but only if the plea is agreed to promptly (thus saving the prosecutor valuable resources). Otherwise, he will charge the maximum, and, while he will not close the door to any later plea bargain, it will be to a higher-level offense than the one offered at the outset of the case.

> In this typical situation, the prosecutor has all the advantages. He knows a lot about the case (and, as noted, probably feels more confident about it than he should, since he has only heard from one side), whereas the defense lawyer knows very little. Furthermore, the prosecutor controls the decision to charge the defendant with a crime. Indeed, the law of every US jurisdiction leaves this to the prosecutor’s unfettered discretion; and both the prosecutor and the defense lawyer know that the grand jury, which typically will hear from one side only, is highly likely to approve any charge the prosecutor recommends.

> But what really puts the prosecutor in the driver’s seat is the fact that he — because of mandatory minimums, sentencing guidelines (which, though no longer mandatory in the federal system, are still widely followed by most judges), and simply his ability to shape whatever charges are brought — can effectively dictate the sentence by how he publicly describes the offense. For example, the prosecutor can agree with the defense counsel in a federal narcotics case that, if there is a plea bargain, the defendant will only have to plead guilty to the personal sale of a few ounces of heroin, which carries no mandatory minimum and a guidelines range of less than two years; but if the defendant does not plead guilty, he will be charged with the drug conspiracy of which his sale was a small part, a conspiracy involving many kilograms of heroin, which could mean a ten-year mandatory minimum and a guidelines range of twenty years or more. Put another way, it is the prosecutor, not the judge, who effectively exercises the sentencing power, albeit cloaked as a charging decision.

Criminal defense lawyers know this reality all too well and thee issues discussed are at the crux of debates over mandatory minimum sentencing provisions. The article deals at length with the issues and the unfortunate consequences on the innocent who are at the mercy of the system.

Kassius Benson is an attorney experienced in representing clients in Federal and state courts of Minnesota and Washington, D.C. He can be reached at (612) 333-2755.

### Related Articles

- ATTORNEY KASSIUS BENSON OBTAINS SUPPRESSION OF STATEMENT IN RICE COUNTY MURDER CASE
- Kassius Benson Obtains Suppression of Evidence and Dismissal of First Degree Drug Case
- ATTORNEY KASSIUS BENSON OBTAINS PROBATION FOR CLIENT CHARGED WITH MANSLAUGHTER

###

### Leave your comment Cancel Reply

Display Name *

Email Address * (will not be shared)

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Comment *

English
English