The reason why so many people in prison are innocent.

[Anti Federalist]

Based on ongoing research from organizations like The Innocence Project, I suspect the number might be as high as 30 percent.

Facts brought out in the following article bear that out even further.

And yet another reason why you never talk to cops.

Even perfectly innocent people can make contradictory statements that can convict you or, in this case, be used by a government prosecutor to hammer you into taking a plea bargain. Cops and prosecutors do not exist to "protect" you. They exist to apply government sanctioned violence to force compliance and to put people in prison.

And this is not just Colorado, this is pretty much every state in the country now.




High rate of Colorado pleas undermines right to trial by jury

June 23, 2012 7:56 PM

http://www.gazette.com/opinion/banks-140734-prison-instead.html

Californian Brian Banks wanted to pursue a professional football career. Instead he spent six years in prison for a crime he did not commit. After he was accused of rape and kidnapping in 2002, reports ABC News, “his attorneys encouraged him to plead no contest instead of going to trial before a jury and risking 41 years in prison.” This year, his accuser recanted.

Banks’ case points to a broader concern. True, often those guilty of crimes plead guilty, thereby saving taxpayers the expense of a trial. But, by threatening the accused with drastically more severe potential penalties if they exercise their right to a trial by jury, prosecutors undermine that right and sometimes compel the innocent to plead guilty.

Colorado criminal statistics for the years 2006 through 2011 show that Colorado prosecutors rely on plea bargains to reach convictions an overwhelming 97.6 percent of the time, according to documents obtained by the Independence Institute through a Colorado Open Records Act request.

According to those documents, only 4,241 felony convictions resulted from a jury trial, or 2.4 percent of the total of 175,015 felony convictions. A total of 6,101 felony cases went to trial, so the conviction rate at trial was 70 percent.

Drug cases accounted for 54,321 felony filings (23 percent) of 238,987 total filings. In terms of convictions, drug cases accounted for 43,034 (25 percent) of the total. Of the 790 drug cases that went to trial, 611 resulted in a conviction, meaning that only 1.4 percent of drug convictions resulted from a jury trial.

The national trend is away from jury trials to plea bargains. The New York Times reported last year that, within nine states that kept statistics, the number of felony cases going to trial has fallen dramatically since the 1970s, when the figure was over 8 percent.

State Public Defender Douglas Wilson sees this is a problem. “Those accused of crimes have had their right to jury trial limited by the Draconian sentencing laws,” he said.

During the past legislative session, Sen. Pat Steadman sponsored an unsuccessful bill that might have influenced some to go to trial rather than plead guilty. Among other things, SB105 would have required courts to notify the accused of the “collateral consequences” of a conviction, such as the rigors of parole and the effects on potential employment.

Steadman said, “I was a big proponent of the fact that people should be on notice of what are the consequences and make a knowing plea agreement if that’s what they’re doing.”

Steadman’s bill, however, would have done nothing to reduce the power of prosecutors to threaten the accused with severe sentences for daring to take their case before a jury. Steadman said of the bill’s language, “I don’t know that it really cuts a great deal in the opposite direction from the heavy-handed pressure of the district attorney.”

A possible broader reform is to limit the difference between the punishments resulting from a plea bargain versus a jury conviction. Yes, this likely would lead to more jury trials and drive up court costs, at least in the short run. It might also cause prosecutors to re-examine weak cases before pushing for a conviction. And it might encourage legislators to rethink some of the activities they criminalize and some of the sentences they allow for various crimes. So be it.

The right to trial by jury is a central feature of Western justice. Following a long tradition of jury trials going back to ancient Greece, the Magna Carta, and of course the U.S. Bill of Rights, Colorado’s Bill of Rights states, “The right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate in criminal cases” (Article II, Section 23).

By giving prosecutors such overwhelming power to pressure the accused into pleading guilty without a trial, the Legislature fails to live up to the spirit, if not the letter, of this provision.

[talkingpointes]

Finding a public defender that doesn't recommend and then do everything to get out of a jury trial is impossible.

[Anti Federalist]

Finding a public defender that doesn't recommend and then do everything to get out of a jury trial is impossible.

And of course you won't be able to afford an attorney on your own, once they asset forfeiture your ass.

[phill4paul]

And of course you won't be able to afford an attorney on your own, once they asset forfeiture your ass.

Damn straight. They don't even have to convict to do it. They just...DO IT. If you want your assets back it is YOU who have to take them to court. Of course that is pretty hard to do when you have no resources.
And back to the OP. I am fully convinced it is indeed the mandatory sentencing minimums and lack of knowledge of what the plea deal entails that lead to plea deals.
Those numbers are staggering.

[tod evans]

from here;

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?365928-Courts-Jury-s-and-Plea-Bargains-The-bastardization-of-the-legal-system&highlight=legal+system

Over the last couple of months I've noticed quite a few people advocating the sanctity of our jury system.

This is a good thing, it means that folks still believe that the legal system can work as it was intended.

Reality however is that more than 90% of people accused of a crime are sentenced by the prosecutor without ever setting foot in front of a jury.

Our legal system has been twisted and manipulated over the years to the point that if a person accused of a crime tries to exercise his right to a trial by jury he is assured of financial ruin and most likely loss of freedom for the remainder of his life.

Like most issues with government there isn't a simple solution to a complex problem.....Legislators have enacted so many laws over the years that just about anyone anywhere may be brought up on charges.. keep this in mind as I ramble.

Cops........cops decide who is committing what crime, they document the criminal behavior arrest the citizen and detain him while the prosecuting attorney prepares his case in the name of "the people".

Now the prosecutor in collusion with the legislators attach every conceivable breach of law to the indictment. There is a twisted logic in this exercise, first when presented with the indictment the accused is flabbergasted by the potential sentence he is facing......Second if the accused does decide to exert his right to a trial by jury the prosecutor and cops can justify the prosecution by citing the laundry list of violations as proof of criminal behavior.

So we have a person accused of a "crime" imprisoned faced with a list of charges that may legally be brought against him....The jury of "his peers" is no where in sight, in fact the likelihood of the accused speaking to anyone versed in the legality of the charges waged against him for less than $250.00hr is pretty slim.....Sure he can have a court appointed attorney, one who draws his check from the same disbursement officer as the prosecutor and the cops.

The fellow accused of criminal behavior is now faced with some really difficult choices, should he try to "bond out"? If he does, does that mean he has the money to retain competent counsel? Does he try to defend himself against a laundry list of additional charges attached to the actual "crime" either by himself or with a "court appointed attorney"? Or does he acquiesce and accept a "plea-bargain" from the prosecutor?

Due to the structure of the court system most people accused of a crime logically choose to lessen their exposure to the sanctions of a court and forego their right to a jury.

It is due to this process that we have such wonderful things happening like child molesters serving less than 60 months, murders serving less than 84 months while others are serving 240 months for growing pot. People who embezzle millions serve minimal time while others who steal food are sentenced to years.

I don't have any solutions....The constitution grants each of us the right to be judged by a jury of our peers but for heavens sake very few are.

What we have isn't working and obviously more legislation isn't the answer.........Got any ideas?

[DerailingDaTrain]

from here;

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?365928-Courts-Jury-s-and-Plea-Bargains-The-bastardization-of-the-legal-system&highlight=legal+system

Over the last couple of months I've noticed quite a few people advocating the sanctity of our jury system.

This is a good thing, it means that folks still believe that the legal system can work as it was intended.

Reality however is that more than 90% of people accused of a crime are sentenced by the prosecutor without ever setting foot in front of a jury.

Our legal system has been twisted and manipulated over the years to the point that if a person accused of a crime tries to exercise his right to a trial by jury he is assured of financial ruin and most likely loss of freedom for the remainder of his life.

Like most issues with government there isn't a simple solution to a complex problem.....Legislators have enacted so many laws over the years that just about anyone anywhere may be brought up on charges.. keep this in mind as I ramble.

Cops........cops decide who is committing what crime, they document the criminal behavior arrest the citizen and detain him while the prosecuting attorney prepares his case in the name of "the people".

Now the prosecutor in collusion with the legislators attach every conceivable breach of law to the indictment. There is a twisted logic in this exercise, first when presented with the indictment the accused is flabbergasted by the potential sentence he is facing......Second if the accused does decide to exert his right to a trial by jury the prosecutor and cops can justify the prosecution by citing the laundry list of violations as proof of criminal behavior.

So we have a person accused of a "crime" imprisoned faced with a list of charges that may legally be brought against him....The jury of "his peers" is no where in sight, in fact the likelihood of the accused speaking to anyone versed in the legality of the charges waged against him for less than $250.00hr is pretty slim.....Sure he can have a court appointed attorney, one who draws his check from the same disbursement officer as the prosecutor and the cops.

The fellow accused of criminal behavior is now faced with some really difficult choices, should he try to "bond out"? If he does, does that mean he has the money to retain competent counsel? Does he try to defend himself against a laundry list of additional charges attached to the actual "crime" either by himself or with a "court appointed attorney"? Or does he acquiesce and accept a "plea-bargain" from the prosecutor?

Due to the structure of the court system most people accused of a crime logically choose to lessen their exposure to the sanctions of a court and forego their right to a jury.

It is due to this process that we have such wonderful things happening like child molesters serving less than 60 months, murders serving less than 84 months while others are serving 240 months for growing pot. People who embezzle millions serve minimal time while others who steal food are sentenced to years.

I don't have any solutions....The constitution grants each of us the right to be judged by a jury of our peers but for heavens sake very few are.

What we have isn't working and obviously more legislation isn't the answer.........Got any ideas?

Don't you have a right to a jury trial in this country? I may be mistaken however

[ghengis86]

Thank god there's a community of people like you all to keep me sane. Seeing through all this bullshit; you guys are awesome.

[thequietkid10]

Finding a public defender that doesn't recommend and then do everything to get out of a jury trial is impossible.


From what I've heard and seen public defenders are overwhelmed and underpaid compared to other areas of law. It's seems like Big Business pays better then the ordinary Joe. It doesn't help that the courts charge all sorts of fees in order to file motions, issue subpoena's, submit documents to the court, ect, ect, ect.

[tod evans]

Don't you have a right to a jury trial in this country? I may be mistaken however

Of course you do.

BUT..........If you exercise that right you will be punitively punished before the "trial" and "if" 90+% chance, you're found guilty you'll do substantially more time in the hooscow.

[jkr]

jury convicted Bernard Von Nauhaus...

[satchelmcqueen]

i know of 3 people right now who were accused of a crime which they didnt commit and now 1 has taken a plea bargain of 3 yrs probation and a permanent record vs higher lawyer fees and threats of major jail time if she loses. she plea bargained cause it was cheaper and she is poor. she is totally innocent btw. she just cant afford a jury trial.

another was accused of messing with his daughter in church... he DID NOT DO IT! he has tons of witnesses that was sitting with him. his daughter is retarded and he has to wrestle her sometimes in the pew to keep her still. she mashed his privates in climbing over him and he grabbed himself. one lady in the church who has been hated him for years because he "gets on her nerves" according to her, saw this and screams that he touched himself in a sexual way while holding his daughter. the cops were called and he was arrested. still sitting in fannin county georgia jail because he cannot afford bond. doctor checkups on the child found NO EVIDENCE of molestation. he is a single dad with 3 kids. he has now lost his job, apartment and his kids. even if he pulls through this and comes out clear and free, his life has already been ruined.

i am the 3rd person. i have been accused by my ex wife of keeping our 2 kids from her. they chose to stop seeing her because of how she treated them. even drew back to hit my daughter last time they went with her. they told the judge everything as to why they dont want to see her as that is their right to exercise according to our divorce agreement based on their ages of 15 and 17. the judge is biased and has forced me and my kids into many counseling sessions and forced "voluntary" visitation with my ex. i even have proof my ex lied on everything she claimed about me in her court papers. this didnt matter. after 5 months of this bs i still have yet to be able to speak and defend myself or face my ex in a court of law, and ive not been found guilty. its all been one sided and is still not over. ive spent all my money trying to defend myself and my kids. my ex was horrible to them. i suspect the judge will order forced visitation even at their late teen years to which they have stated they do not want to see her. the judge walked in and told the kids they would do exactly as she says and it didnt matter how they felt about it. my kids made the judge listen to their reasons for not wanting to see their mom at this time. again, it didnt matter. heads will roll soon on this case i assure you.

the system is a fucking joke. all it takes is 1 accusation and youre fucked.

[r3volution]

this is the exact reason federal prosecutors have something like a 90% conviction rate . its all BS , even some federal judges spoke out on this in the past .

[heavenlyboy34]

i know of 3 people right now who were accused of a crime which they didnt commit and now 1 has taken a plea bargain of 3 yrs probation and a permanent record vs higher lawyer fees and threats of major jail time if she loses. she plea bargained cause it was cheaper and she is poor. she is totally innocent btw. she just cant afford a jury trial.

another was accused of messing with his daughter in church... he DID NOT DO IT! he has tons of witnesses that was sitting with him. his daughter is retarded and he has to wrestle her sometimes in the pew to keep her still. she mashed his privates in climbing over him and he grabbed himself. one lady in the church who has been hated him for years because he "gets on her nerves" according to her, saw this and screams that he touched himself in a sexual way while holding his daughter. the cops were called and he was arrested. still sitting in fannin county georgia jail because he cannot afford bond. doctor checkups on the child found NO EVIDENCE of molestation. he is a single dad with 3 kids. he has now lost his job, apartment and his kids. even if he pulls through this and comes out clear and free, his life has already been ruined.

i am the 3rd person. i have been accused by my ex wife of keeping our 2 kids from her. they chose to stop seeing her because of how she treated them. even drew back to hit my daughter last time they went with her. they told the judge everything as to why they dont want to see her as that is their right to exercise according to our divorce agreement based on their ages of 15 and 17. the judge is biased and has forced me and my kids into many counseling sessions and forced "voluntary" visitation with my ex. i even have proof my ex lied on everything she claimed about me in her court papers. this didnt matter. after 5 months of this bs i still have yet to be able to speak and defend myself or face my ex in a court of law, and ive not been found guilty. its all been one sided and is still not over. ive spent all my money trying to defend myself and my kids. my ex was horrible to them. i suspect the judge will order forced visitation even at their late teen years to which they have stated they do not want to see her. the judge walked in and told the kids they would do exactly as she says and it didnt matter how they felt about it. my kids made the judge listen to their reasons for not wanting to see their mom at this time. again, it didnt matter. heads will roll soon on this case i assure you.

the system is a fucking joke. all it takes is 1 accusation and youre fucked.
WOW!! :O That's fucking crazy, man! :( ~hugs~

[Brian4Liberty]

An educational video on this very subject: ;)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjIL2hk6V9M

[Travlyr]

Got any ideas?

Two things. First and foremost is to end the Monopoly Money .. End The Fed. Second is to hold the Supreme Court accountable for their subversion of the constitution. They DO NOT have the power of judicial review (http://www.constitutionality.us/SupremeCourt.html). That was left up to the States and the People. Rather than put their heads in a guillotine, we need to round them up and put them in jail if they do not cease and desist the oppression. They have built some pretty nice jails, so they shouldn't mind living in them.

[Brian4Liberty]

Even perfectly innocent people can make contradictory statements that can convict you or, in this case, be used by a government prosecutor to hammer you into taking a plea bargain.

And to expand on that thought, it's not just the Police and prosecutors. It's also an army of reporters, pundits and internet armchair quarterbacks who seem to have somehow come up with omniscient power to determine the truth with the barest of evidence. "That person is lying, I can tell because I am now God."

[tod evans]

This would be a good start...

I'm fond of repealing all laws not clearly and simply written in lay-mans English and supported by the constitution also.

We've got a long way to go..




Two things. First and foremost is to end the Monopoly Money .. End The Fed. Second is to hold the Supreme Court accountable for their subversion of the constitution. They DO NOT have the power of judicial review (http://www.constitutionality.us/SupremeCourt.html). That was left up to the States and the People. Rather than put their heads in a guillotine, we need to round them up and put them in jail if they do not cease and desist the oppression. They have built some pretty nice jails, so they shouldn't mind living in them.

[mport1]

I'd venture to guess that less than 10% of people in jail/prison are in there for a crime that actually involved a victim. Plus I'd say the majority of those people's crimes were somehow related to the drug war. The whole system is a sham.

[Working Poor]

What we have isn't working and obviously more legislation isn't the answer.........Got any ideas?

I think people up on drug charges and non violent crimes ought to start demanding jury trials especially 1st time offenders. The people are starting to realize that going to prison for have a single pot plant is a waste of the tax payers money. I know a lot of people who have vowed to go for jury nullification on marijuana procession laws if they get called to jury duty.

[heavenlyboy34]

I think people up on drug charges and non violent crimes ought to start demanding jury trials especially 1st time offenders. The people are starting to realize that going to prison for have a single pot plant is a waste of the tax payers money. I know a lot of people who have vowed to go for jury nullification on marijuana procession laws if they get called to jury duty.
Nice to see you again, WP! :) ~hugs~

[Keith and stuff]

I know a lot of people who have vowed to go for jury nullification on marijuana procession laws if they get called to jury duty.

And they should!

The Free State of New Hampshire is now a Fully Informed Jury state!
by Tim Condon
http://granitegrok.com/blog/2012/06/the-free-state-of-new-hampshire-is-now-a-fully-informed-jury-state


The General Court passed it, and now the governor of New Hampshire has signed it as of Friday, June 22, 2012.

[tod evans]

This is a good thing for NH!

You've still got one problem I can see....Prosecutorial discression....The state prosecutor can simply turn the case over to the feds if he fears jury nullification will be a factor.

Watch for it.

[fisharmor]

The constitution grants each of us the right to be judged by a jury of our peers but for heavens sake very few are.

What we have isn't working and obviously more legislation isn't the answer.........Got any ideas?

Step 1:
Stop repeating this vicious lie.
The constitution doesn't "grant" shit to shit.
If we don't have rights, we don't have rights.... and the constitution, the government, the legislatures aren't going to "grant" us a fucking thing.

Stop using this language.
All of you.
We either have rights, or we have jack shit.
As long as all of you keep acting like the state-god bestows special privileges on us, we're going to remain in this situation.

Free men don't go begging for fair treatment from a goddamn piece of paper.

[tod evans]

Step 1:
Stop repeating this vicious lie.
The constitution doesn't "grant" shit to shit.
.

Sorry dude I suppose I should have used "assures" instead of "grants"...

[fisharmor]

Sorry dude I suppose I should have used "assures" instead of "grants"...

Sorry, sore spot.... but seriously, by saying we get anything from the state, we're buying into it.

[Travlyr]

Sorry, sore spot.... but seriously, by saying we get anything from the state, we're buying into it.

Lack of the state is the problem we have today. The proper role of the state is to protect our property, liberty, and peace. We don't have that. We need to enforce the rule of law and abandon the rule by man.

Just because the talking heads say that we have a state doesn't mean that we do. We don't. We are being ruled not by law but by man. This election cycle should have proved that to everyone without a shadow of a doubt. We are not electing our leaders. They are chosen by the Oligarchy. That much is obvious.