First, what of the state’s argument that taking a case to trial is a reflection of the defendant’s refusal to accept responsibility for his actions (as opposed to a plea situation)? Not an explicit argument against anyone’s right to a trial, but certainly seems to put the defendant in a different position for sentencing.[/quote] Absolutely. That is also compounded by the disadvantage to the client who continues to profess his innocence in the face of a guilty verdict. I’ve seen judges go off on defendants for maintaining that position after trial.

[quote]Second, isn’t there an argument that by accepting a plea, the defendant effectively “saves” the witnesses from having to come to court to testify. Financial concerns aside, testifying in a courtroom full of strangers, being subjected to rigorous cross-examination, taking time off work, etc all puts additional stress on all the witnesses, particularly the victims. Though more pronounced in violent crime cases and cases involving children, some trace of that exists in every criminal case.[/quote] Yes and that is part of the bargaining process. But is it worth that much more that the sentences are significantly higher after trial than they were pre-trial?
[/quote]

But that ad demonstrates why it’s so vital to do trials on the triable cases. If you don’t disrupt the line, the presumption of guilt builds up too much momentum. Judges NEED to be reminded that the probable cause statement isn’t all there is to a case. The best way I’ve found to do that is making them sit through trials and be reminded of how different things can look when the whole story comes out.[/quote]

Why do you think it’s creepy? It’s eerie and kinda funny, to be sure, but I don’t see creepy.

I agree, however, that defense attorneys should not be afraid to threaten trial (in the appropriate cases, of course) and remind the other “participants” that if they don’t make reasonable offers, you will put them through the effort of proving their case.

There are some ethical issues involved, but IIRC correctly when I last looked at them, I resolved them in favor of the PDs.

But that ad demonstrates why it’s so vital to do trials on the triable cases. If you don’t disrupt the line, the presumption of guilt builds up too much momentum. Judges NEED to be reminded that the probable cause statement isn’t all there is to a case. The best way I’ve found to do that is making them sit through trials and be reminded of how different things can look when the whole story comes out.

First, what of the state’s argument that taking a case to trial is a reflection of the defendant’s refusal to accept responsibility for his actions (as opposed to a plea situation)? Not an explicit argument against anyone’s right to a trial, but certainly seems to put the defendant in a different position for sentencing.

Second, isn’t there an argument that by accepting a plea, the defendant effectively “saves” the witnesses from having to come to court to testify. Financial concerns aside, testifying in a courtroom full of strangers, being subjected to rigorous cross-examination, taking time off work, etc all puts additional stress on all the witnesses, particularly the victims. Though more pronounced in violent crime cases and cases involving children, some trace of that exists in every criminal case.

Again, I am not arguing in favor of widely disparate sentences, just suggesting additional reasons for differences between post-trial and post-plea sentences.

Some people have suggested to me that the only way to deal with this is for public defender agencies to arbitrarily and randomly, as a matter of policy, refuse to enter pleas other than “not guilty” under any circumstances on some days that nobody knows in advance. Three or four times per year would be enough.

Especially at the misdemeanor level, doing this would result in calamity, and although PDs would be in difficult positions every now and again, the other parties would have to reexamine what their roles and interests are.