The Unexonerated: Factually Innocent Defendants Who Plead Guilty

Abstract

Several recent high profile cases, including the case of the West Memphis Three, have revealed (again), that factually innocent defendants do plead guilty. And, more disturbingly, in many of the cases, the defendant's innocence is known, or at least highly suspected, at the time the plea is entered. Innocent defendants plead guilty most often, but not always, in three sets of cases: first, low level offenses where a quick guilty plea provides the key to the cellblock door; second, cases where defendants have been wrongfully convicted, prevail on appeal, and are then offered a plea bargain which will assure their immediate or imminent release and third, where defendants are threatened with harsh alternative punishments if they do not plead guilty. There are three primary contributing factors leading to a criminal justice system where significant numbers of innocent defendants plead guilty to crimes they did not commit. The first is the perceived need that all defendants must plead. The second is the current draconian sentencing regime for criminal offenses. And, the final contributing *Professor of Law, Cornell Law School. The authors would like to thank the participants in the Cornell Law School summer workshop series for their helpful comments and suggestions as well as the participants in the faculty workshop at the University of South Carolina School of Law for their insightful comments and suggestions, and also Professor Anna Roberts for her useful comments and suggestions.

Limitations on the ability to negotiate justice: attorney perspectives on guilt, innocence, and legal advice in the current plea system

“…Defendants offered a plea deal must make a decision as to whether they want to exercise their right to trial, or whether they want to plead guilty and receive a certain sentence and charge that is less severe than they would receive if convicted at trial. The terms offered as part of a plea deal can create extreme pressure to plead guilty – in the most extreme case a guilty plea can be the only way to protect against a risk of death (through the imposition of the death penalty) as the result of trial (Blume & Helm, 2014). This means that plea decisions are not as simple as guilty defendants deciding whether or not to admit guilt, but are a tactical decision based on risks and potential consequences.…”

“…In the current American criminal justice system the majority of convictions occur as the result of guilty pleas rather than trial – in 2015, 97.1% of federal cases that were resolved were resolved via a guilty plea by the defendant (United States Sentencing Commission 2014 Sourcebook). The high rate of pleas has occurred largely as a result of the practice of plea bargaining, where a defendant can agree to plead guilty in exchange for a reduced sentence rather than exercise their right to a jury trial (Blume & Helm, 2014; Stuntz, 2006). This practice is well-known and often accepted as an efficient way to dispose of cases.…”

“…This rationale has been used to justify plea bargaining through the idea that a defendant can get a reduced sentence by confessing to something that they have done (Garrett, 2016). However, academics and legal commentators have noted that characteristics of current plea-bargaining practice mean that it is not just operating in a way that allows defendants to get a reduced sentence by confessing to something that they have done, but also to encourage or even coerce innocent defendants into pleading guilty (see, for example, Blume & Helm, 2014; Caldwell, 2011; Dervan & Edkins, 2013; Helm & Reyna, 2017; Zottoli, Daftary-Kapur, Winters, & Hogan, 2016).…”

State of the States: A survey of statutory law, regulations and court rules pertaining to guilty pleas across the United States

“…Some scholars contend that such pleas lead to stiffer sentences, probation revocations, and difficulties in obtaining parole (see Alschuler, ; Ward, for discussions). Others raise concern that the availability of such pleas can increase the likelihood that the truly innocent will falsely condemn themselves (Blume & Helm, ). According to Bibas (), 38 states and the District of Columbia allow for no‐contest pleas and 47 states and DC allow for Alford pleas.…”

Apogeo y declive del derecho constitucional a un juicio por jurado para causas penales en los Estados Unidos

“…Es una derrota porque no es parte del margen de error normal de cualquier sistema de justicia, en el que se sabe que la verificación de hechos, ya sea por el juez o por el jurado, puede fallar. Es una derrota en la que en muchos casos no se hizo un intento serio de saber qué pasó, reemplazando esta necesaria indagación por la «confesión» del imputado (véase Blume & Helm, 2014, pp. 14-15, quienes citan la decisión de la corte en el caso Santobello v. New York).…”