LEGAL ARTICLES
Disclaimer: The following article is provided for information purposes only and is not to be construed as actual legal advice nor take the place of legal counsel.
How To Plead - Guilty or Not Guilty
To
some, the answer to this question may appear to be very simple –
if a person is guilty, he should plead Guilty and if he is not guilty,
he should plead Not Guilty. However, it is rarely that simple and
this decision can be a difficult one that requires consideration
of many complex factors. One fact a person charged with a crime
must be aware of is that the criminal justice system, in both the
military and in the civilian courts, is not perfect. A person who
is truly not guilty, can certainly be convicted, and sent to jail,
for a crime he did not commit. Sometimes a person who professes
his innocence may be facing overwhelming evidence that is clearly
enough to support a conviction. In the criminal courts of the Virginia,
that person should be apprised of an option that the military accused
does not have – the ability to enter what is known as an Alford
plea of Guilty, which is where the defendant enters a plea of Guilty,
but tells the judge he does so not because he is in fact Guilty,
but because he is concerned of the risks related to a conviction
if he pleads Not Guilty and he is entering the Guilty plea to secure
a more favorable resolution (reduced charges or lenient sentence).
Many people ask why in the world would a person plead Guilty to
a crime he did not commit - the answer is the risk factor which
is a part of our imperfect judicial system. There is no such thing
as an Alford plea in the military and any plea of Guilty must be
factually supported and entered because the accused is in fact Guilty.
When the military accused is in fact guilty, he has some options as to how to proceed. Remember of course that even the guilty accused has a legal and moral right to plead Not Guilty and to require the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Obviously there are significant risks with this, but unquestionably there are many criminal trials where the prosecution simply can not prove its case and a person who is truly guilty is acquitted. That is how our system works - it is frequently said that it is much better for a guilty person to be acquitted, than for an innocent person to be convicted of a crime he did not commit. Another option is to consider the feasibility of securing a favorable Pre-trial Agreement (PTA). In the military, a PTA operates to set forth what offenses the accused will enter a plea of Guilty to and upon doing so, what consideration the Convening Authority will give to the accused for signing the PTA. The benefit to the command for executing a PTA can come in several different ways, to include a significant saving of expense and manpower over a contested trial, or possibly to secure the cooperation of the accused to testify against other suspects. The benefit to the accused likewise can come in several different ways, to include a dismissal of some of the charges and/or a limitation on the sentence that can be approved.
The standard PTA in the military is a two-part document. The first part will set forth what the agreement is as to the pleas of the accused and any specially negotiated provisions. This part of the PTA will be provided to the judge frequently before trial starts and will be considered by the judge in determining whether or not to accept the pleas of the accused. The second part is the sentencing portion of the PTA and this will not be provided to the judge until after sentence is announced.
Lets take a look at a hypothetical case involving a General Court-Martial of a Second Class Petty Officer (we will refer to him as John) who is charged with numerous offenses related to the theft and sale of Government property and conspiracy to steal the property. In our hypothetical, John is facing 75 years of confinement, reduction to E-1, total forfeiture or all pay and allowances, an unlimited fine and a Dishonorable Discharge from the US Navy if convicted of all offenses. In the negotiation of a PTA, we will first attempt to limit the offenses that John will have to plead Guilty to which will necessarily result in a decrease of the maximum punishment. Lets say in John’s case we are successful and secure an agreement to dismiss some of the charges which reduces the maximum punishment John is facing to 45 years. Once we have the pleas worked out, we then focus on the sentencing limitations in an effort to reduce exposure to confinement and to limit the level of the punitive discharge that can be imposed. Depending upon the case, other sentencing limitations may be sought, such as reduction limits, as well as protection from forfeitures and/or fines. Assume that a PTA is negotiated and executed which provides for suspension of any confinement in excess of 5 months, as well as suspension of all forfeitures and fines. Furthermore, if a Dishonorable Discharge is imposed, it will be remitted to a Bad Conduct Discharge. When John goes to court, assume the judge imposes a sentence of 10 months confinement, total forfeiture of pay and allowances, a fine of $ 3,000.00, reduction to E-1 and a Dishonorable Discharge. In accordance with the terms of the PTA, the Convening Authority will be obligated to suspend any confinement in excess of 5 months, as well as the forfeitures and fine. Furthermore, the Dishonorable Discharge will be remitted to a Bad Conduct Discharge. Now assume a different trial result, where the judge sentenced John to 3 months confinement and reduction to E-3. In that case, John has “beat the PTA” and the Convening Authority can not increase the sentence.
As you can see from this, a Pre-Trial Agreement can significantly reduce the exposure of an accused at a Court-Martial. However, in some cases it may not be in the best interest of the accused to enter into a PTA. The decisions to be made as to how to plead, and whether or not to attempt to secure a PTA, must be a based upon consideration of all of the facts and circumstances of the case.