An Agreement To Plead Guilty To A Less Serious Crime Is Called Bargaining
Oral arguments can be beneficial for both prosecutors and defendants. In some cases, prosecutors may seek advocacy in order to save valuable justice time for high-priority cases. Prosecutors are often willing to negotiate with an accused who pleads guilty and takes responsibility for a crime: in this context, pleadings are seen as the reward of the accused for his confession. Prosecutors also accept pleadings because they are largely evaluated based on their conviction rates and all pleadings result in a conviction because the accused must plead guilty as part of the pleading agreement. Many jurisdictions have laws that require victims to be aware of pleadings. In Indiana, for example, a prosecutor must inform the victim of a crime, during negotiations with the accused or the accused`s lawyer, of a recommendation that the prosecutor can submit to the court. The Supreme Court asks prosecutors to inform defendants of such evidence. In 2001, the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that it was unconstitutional for prosecutors to withhold a recommendation for exit on the basis that the accused refused to waive his right to Brady`s evidence (United States v. Ruiz, 241 F.3d 1157 [9th Cir.
2001]). However, a Supreme Court unanimously objected and declared that « the Constitution does not require the government to disclose physical evidence before including a Plea agreement with a criminal defendant » (United States v. Ruiz, 536 U.p. 622, 122 pp. Ct. 2450, 153 L. Ed. 2d 586 [2002]). The extent to which innocent people accept a plea and plead guilty is controversial and has been thoroughly investigated. . .
.
