DOCSLIB.ORG

The Effect of Plea Bargaining Vs. Trial Conviction on the Sentencing of Offenders Charged with a Drug Offense in Cook County, Illinois

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Effect of Plea Bargaining Vs. Trial Conviction on the Sentencing of Offenders Charged with a Drug Offense in Cook County, Illinois Loyola University Chicago Loyola eCommons Dissertations Theses and Dissertations 2010 The Effect of Plea Bargaining Vs. Trial Conviction on the Sentencing of Offenders Charged with a Drug Offense in Cook County, Illinois Joseph George Dusek Loyola University Chicago Follow this and additional works at: https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_diss Part of the Criminology Commons Recommended Citation Dusek, Joseph George, "The Effect of Plea Bargaining Vs. Trial Conviction on the Sentencing of Offenders Charged with a Drug Offense in Cook County, Illinois" (2010). Dissertations. 269. https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_diss/269 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses and Dissertations at Loyola eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Loyola eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License. Copyright © 2010 Joseph George Dusek LOYOLA UNIVERSITY CHICAGO THE EFFECT OF PLEA BARGAINING VS. TRIAL CONVICTION ON THE SENTENCING OF OFFENDERS CHARGED WITH A DRUG OFFENSE IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY PROGRAM IN RESEARCH METHODOLOGY BY JOE DUSEK CHICAGO, IL AUGUST 2010 Copyright by Joe Dusek, 2010 All rights reserved. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS My gratitude could never be expressed in words for what I owe so many individuals. My parents, their love, their encouragement for all things academic and their inspirational example of perseverance are the foundation for whatever accomplishments I have in my life. To Dave Thomas and Dan Makowski I owe the deepest debt for staying with me during the best and worst of times. Terri Pigott, Ph.D., showed infinite patience and helped so much with my numerous rewrites. Whatever scholarly value this work may have would not be but for her knowledge and skill as a teacher. I will always be grateful for her work as my advisor, perhaps even more for her patience. I thank Meng-Jia Wu, Ph.D. of Loyola University Chicago and Jacqueline Mullany, Ph.D. of Triton College for their guidance as committee members. I offer a special thank you to Lesa Hildebrand for acting as my copy editor for the final version and filling in the missing pieces. The absence of split infinitives and dangling participles in this document is due to her diligence. iii To my parents, Joe and Georgeann Dusek TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii LIST OF TABLES vii LIST OF FIGURES ix ABSTRACT x CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 3 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY 24 Data Description 24 Data Permissions 25 Variables in Dataset 25 Dependent Variables 25 Independent Variables 26 Analyses Performed 29 Coding 31 Schemes for Codes 32 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS 36 Dominant Statutes 36 Probation vs. Prison 38 Conviction Mode 39 Offense Seriousness 41 Gender 43 Gender and Conviction Mode Compared to Sentence 44 Ethnicity 48 Ethnicity and Conviction Mode Compared to Sentence 49 Ethnicity and Offense Seriousness 50 Summary 57 General Linear Models 59 Research Question 59 Grand Summary 65 v CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 75 Introduction 75 Data and Analyses 76 Discussion of Findings Related to Trial Tax Existence 77 Discussion of Findings Related to Contextual Variables 78 Discussion of Findings Related to Measuring Associations 79 Limitations 79 Implications and Recommendations for Future Research 81 Conclusion 81 APPENDIX A 82 REFERENCE LIST 88 VITA 90 vi LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Independent Variables 27 2. Statutes and Their Descriptions 28 3. Example of a Contingency Table 30 4. Summary of Independent Variable Coding Schemes 33 5. Frequency Distribution of Statutes Violated 37 6. Comparison of Probation vs. Prison 38 7. Comparison of Plea Bargain vs. Trial Conviction 39 8. Prison Time by Conviction Mode 39 9. Conviction Mode Compared to Probation or Prison 40 10. Comparison of Sentence and Conviction Mode for Mean Sentence (in Months) 40 11. Convictions for Quantity Compared to Offense Seriousness 41 12. Mean Sentence (in Months) for Seriousness Factors 42 13. Analysis of Variance for Sentence Length 43 14. Comparison of Gender and Conviction Mode 44 15. Comparison of Conviction Mode and Mean Sentence (in Months) 45 16. Analysis of Variance for Gender and Conviction Mode Regarding Sentence 46 vii 17. Comparison of Ethnicity and Conviction Mode 48 18. Comparison of Ethnicity and Conviction Mode for Mean Sentence (in Months) 49 19. Analysis of Variance for Ethnicity and Conviction Mode Regarding Sentence 50 20. Comparison of Ethnicity and Offense Seriousness 51 21. Comparison of Ethnicity and Quantity 51 22. Comparison of Ethnicity and Possession vs. Sales Seriousness for Mean Sentence (in Months) 52 23. Comparison of Ethnicity and Quantity for Mean Sentence (in Months) 53 24. Analysis of Variance for Ethnicity and Quantity and Seriousness Regarding Sentence 54 25. Independent Variables 60 26. Summary of Independent Variable Coding Schemes 62 27. Summary of Linear Model Analysis to Predict Sentence Using All Independent Variables 63 28. Predicting Sentence Summary 67 29. Predicting Sentence by Gender for Possession Crimes Considering Quantity 68 30. Predicting Sentence by Gender for Sales Crimes Considering Quantity 70 31. Predicting Sentence by Ethnicity for Possession Crimes Considering Quantity 72 32. Predicting Sentence by Ethnicity for Sales Crimes Considering Quantity 73 viii LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Comparison of sentence means considering conviction mode and gender 47 2. Comparison of sentence means considering ethnicity and possess vs. sell 55 3. Comparison of sentence means considering ethnicity and quantity 56 ix ABSTRACT Traditional wisdom suggests those who lose at trial for a criminal charge receive a heftier prison sentence than those who plea bargain. Plea bargaining reduces strain on the courts, expedites adjudication and may indicate the defendant’s propensity for rehabilitation as they accept responsibility for their actions. Some ask why two people charged with the same crime should receive different sentences based on the adjudication method. The Constitution guarantees the right to a jury trial. Innocent defendants may decide to plead guilty for a sure short sentence rather than risk a trial conviction’s lengthier one. This study using statistical procedures examined 12,786 adjudicated drug crime cases between 2004 and 2007 from the Cook County Circuit Court in Illinois. It sought to determine if adjudication method, plea bargain vs. trial conviction, predicted prison sentence while controlling for independent variables such as ethnicity, gender, statute violated, offense seriousness, quantity and interaction effects. x CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION For years, criminal justice experts have debated the existence of a trial tax with regards to sentencing. Many believe that in the case of two defendants charged with the same offense, all other conditions being equal, if one pleads guilty and the other goes to trial and is found guilty, the latter will receive a stiffer sentence than the former. Ulmer and Bradley (2006) define trial tax as occurring when, “. defendants are substantially penalized if they exercise their right to a jury trial and then lose.” Bogira (2005) defines trial tax as, “. the extra punishment a defendant may face merely by virtue of exercising his right to trial.” The term trial tax has even found its way into official court publications. Illinois appellate courts have acknowledged its existence. The Alabama Sentencing Commission has debated its constitutionality. Bogira (2005) claims the use of trial tax for means of judicial efficiency declaring, “A guilty plea can be wrapped up in approximately 20 minutes, where a jury trial usually takes anywhere from two days to a week.” Does the trial tax actually exist? Controlling for other factors, are defendants who plead guilty more likely to receive leniency than those who go to trial? Among offenders who plead guilty or go to trial for a drug offense, does a disparity exist in their sentences? Assuming we find a disparity, does it remain if we control for other variables such as specific crimes, offense severity, ethnicity or gender? 1 2 This study will examine adjudication data from the Circuit Court of Cook County. The arrest, charge and disposition records of almost 13,000 defendants adjudicated for drug related offenses will be analyzed. Statistical analyses will be run to check for differences between groups based on the above noted variables. The results of this dissertation may be used for policy development related to the alleged penalization of the constitutional right to a jury trial. It may also serve as the foundation for a future, more encompassing study of the same topic – perhaps Illinois wide or including other states. This project will be performed in conjunction with and receive assistance from the Institute for Metropolitan Affairs, a public policy institute operating within Roosevelt University. CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW The primary issue for this research relates to whether a trial tax exists, or not. Anecdotal evidence supports the notion that, everything else being equal, those who plead guilty for crime x will receive a lighter sentence than those who got to trial and are then convicted of crime x, hence the term trial tax. The defendant is enticed to accept the pact – plead guilty and receive a great bargain, hence, plea bargain. However, if the criminally charged all have a constitutional right to trial why should they be penalized for exercising that right versus accepting a plea bargain? This dissertation will examine the difference, if any, between convicts who went to trial to those who plea bargained. The importance of this dissertation lies with the question of disparity in sentencing between trial and plea bargain convicts. If no inequality is found, the concerns over the use of a trial tax disappear. If those who plea bargain receive a statistically significant lesser sentence, however, then innocents may be far more likely to plead guilty to avoid a lengthy prison term.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Municipal Court Trial Procedures
    Municipal Court 4) The right to cross-examine witnesses Trial Procedures admitted during the trial must remain as who testify against you; If you choose to have the case tried before part of the court’s file; therefore, Trial Procedures: 5) The right to testify on your own a jury, you have the right to question jurors documents or photographs contained on a behalf; about their qualifications to hear your case. flash drive, cell phone, tablet, laptop or Roanoke Municipal Court of Record other media may not be admissible. 6) The right not to testify (Your refusal If you think that a juror will not be fair, Purpose to do so may not be held against you impartial, or unbiased, you may ask the After all testimony is concluded, both sides judge to excuse the juror. You are also can make a closing argument. This is your This pamphlet is designed to provide in determining your innocence or permitted to strike three members of the opportunity to summarize the evidence, basic information about criminal guilt.); and jury panel for any reason you choose, present your theory of the case, argue why proceedings in the Northeast municipal 7) You may call witnesses to testify on court. It is not a substitute for legal advice except a strike based solely upon race or the State has failed to meet its burden of your behalf at the trial, and have the gender. proof, and make other arguments allowed from an attorney. You are encouraged to court issue a subpoena (a court order) seek legal advice if you have questions As in all criminal trials, the trial begins by law.
    [Show full text]
  • A Federal Criminal Case Timeline
    A Federal Criminal Case Timeline The following timeline is a very broad overview of the progress of a federal felony case. Many variables can change the speed or course of the case, including settlement negotiations and changes in law. This timeline, however, will hold true in the majority of federal felony cases in the Eastern District of Virginia. Initial appearance: Felony defendants are usually brought to federal court in the custody of federal agents. Usually, the charges against the defendant are in a criminal complaint. The criminal complaint is accompanied by an affidavit that summarizes the evidence against the defendant. At the defendant's first appearance, a defendant appears before a federal magistrate judge. This magistrate judge will preside over the first two or three appearances, but the case will ultimately be referred to a federal district court judge (more on district judges below). The prosecutor appearing for the government is called an "Assistant United States Attorney," or "AUSA." There are no District Attorney's or "DAs" in federal court. The public defender is often called the Assistant Federal Public Defender, or an "AFPD." When a defendant first appears before a magistrate judge, he or she is informed of certain constitutional rights, such as the right to remain silent. The defendant is then asked if her or she can afford counsel. If a defendant cannot afford to hire counsel, he or she is instructed to fill out a financial affidavit. This affidavit is then submitted to the magistrate judge, and, if the defendant qualifies, a public defender or CJA panel counsel is appointed.
    [Show full text]
  • The Economics of Bail and Pretrial Detention
    ECONOMIC ANALYSIS | DECEMBER 2018 The Economics of Bail and Pretrial Detention Patrick Liu, Ryan Nunn, and Jay Shambaugh i The Hamilton Project • Brookings ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We thank Lauren Bauer, Jennifer Doleac, Alex Tabarrok, Emily Weisburst, and Crystal Yang for insightful feedback, as well as Yared Lingo, Jimmy O’Donnell, and Areeb Siddiqui for excellent research assistance. MISSION STATEMENT The Hamilton Project seeks to advance America’s promise of opportunity, prosperity, and growth. The Project’s economic strategy reflects a judgment that long-term prosperity is best achieved by fostering economic growth and broad participation in that growth, by enhancing individual economic security, and by embracing a role for effective government in making needed public investments. We believe that today’s increasingly competitive global economy requires public policy ideas commensurate with the challenges of the 21st century. Our strategy calls for combining increased public investments in key growth-enhancing areas, a secure social safety net, and fiscal discipline. In that framework, the Project puts forward innovative proposals from leading economic thinkers — based on credible evidence and experience, not ideology or doctrine — to introduce new and effective policy options into the national debate. The Project is named after Alexander Hamilton, the nation’s first treasury secretary, who laid the foundation for the modern American economy. Consistent with the guiding principles of the Project, Hamilton stood for sound fiscal policy, believed
    [Show full text]
  • GUIDE for ARREST, JAIL TIME/DETENTION, TRIAL/HEARING, and SENTENCING STAGES (Guide 1 of 3)
    Guide for Families Experiencing the Criminal Justice System GUIDE FOR ARREST, JAIL TIME/DETENTION, TRIAL/HEARING, AND SENTENCING STAGES (Guide 1 of 3) HTTP://WWW.YOUTH.GOV/COIP Families have unique needs and challenges when a parent is arrested. When this happens, family FAMILIES WILL TALK TO MANY members—including the children—are affected. PEOPLE DURING THESE FOUR This guide is the first in a series of three guides STAGES: that cover a family’s journey as the family goes through the stages of, and copes with, a loved • Lawyer or public defender one’s involvement in the justice system. • Judge and court personnel This guide covers the first four stages in the • Probation officer typical criminal justice process, and the other • Law enforcement two guides cover incarceration and reentry: • Jail or detention facility staff • Arrest (entry into the system) • Jail or detention case worker • Jail Time/Detention (prosecution • Child welfare (in some cases) and pretrial services) • Hearing/Trial (adjudication) Families can use the worksheet on the last page of this guide to keep track of • Sentencing (before incarceration) important names, phone numbers, and • Incarceration (Guide 2) e-mail addresses. • Reentry (Guide 3) This guide starts with descriptions and definitions guide. The questions are designed to help of the stages to help families understand the families and caregivers anticipate and respond to legal terms and processes. Having a better thoughts and concerns their children may have. understanding may help families feel less The tips offer suggestions to help caregivers overwhelmed. It may also help families know support and care for the children of parents who what to expect and what will happen next.
    [Show full text]
  • The Myth of the Presumption of Innocence
    Texas Law Review See Also Volume 94 Response The Myth of the Presumption of Innocence Brandon L. Garrett* I. Introduction Do we have a presumption of innocence in this country? Of course we do. After all, we instruct criminal juries on it, often during jury selection, and then at the outset of the case and during final instructions before deliberations. Take this example, delivered by a judge at a criminal trial in Illinois: "Under the law, the Defendant is presumed to be innocent of the charges against him. This presumption remains with the Defendant throughout the case and is not overcome until in your deliberations you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant is guilty."' Perhaps the presumption also reflects something more even, a larger commitment enshrined in a range of due process and other constitutional rulings designed to protect against wrongful convictions. The defense lawyer in the same trial quoted above said in his closings: [A]s [the defendant] sits here right now, he is presumed innocent of these charges. That is the corner stone of our system of justice. The best system in the world. That is a presumption that remains with him unless and until the State can prove him guilty beyond2 a reasonable doubt. That's the lynchpin in the system ofjustice. Our constitutional criminal procedure is animated by that commitment, * Justice Thurgood Marshall Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law. 1. Transcript of Record at 13, People v. Gonzalez, No. 94 CF 1365 (Ill.Cir. Ct. June 12, 1995). 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Criminal Trial Procedure Francis C
    Louisiana Law Review Volume 44 | Number 2 Developments in the Law, 1982-1983: A Symposium November 1983 Criminal Trial Procedure Francis C. Sullivan Repository Citation Francis C. Sullivan, Criminal Trial Procedure, 44 La. L. Rev. (1983) Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/lalrev/vol44/iss2/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at LSU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Louisiana Law Review by an authorized editor of LSU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CRIMINAL TRIAL PROCEDURE Francis C. Sullivan* ATTACHMENT OF JEOPARDY-ARTICLE 592 A simple reading of article 592 of the Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure' would lead one to believe that when a defendant pleads not guilty jeopardy attaches for purposes of determining double jeopardy when the first witness is sworn at the trial on the merits. Such is not the case, however, since the United States Supreme Court held in Crist v. Bretz' that the "federal rule that jeopardy attaches when the jury is empanelled and sworn is an integral part of the constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy." ' As a result, this constitutional rule has been effectively engrafted into article 592 despite the failure of the legislature to alert the unwary to this substantial change in the law. The change, recognized by the Louisiana Supreme Court in State v. Sermon," came before the Loui- siana First Circuit Court of Appeal again this term in State v. Albert.' In Albert, the accused was charged in 1980 with the production of marijuana.
    [Show full text]
  • The “Radical” Notion of the Presumption of Innocence
    EXECUTIVE SESSION ON THE FUTURE OF JUSTICE POLICY THE “RADICAL” MAY 2020 Tracey Meares, NOTION OF THE Justice Collaboratory, Yale University Arthur Rizer, PRESUMPTION R Street Institute OF INNOCENCE The Square One Project aims to incubate new thinking on our response to crime, promote more effective strategies, and contribute to a new narrative of justice in America. Learn more about the Square One Project at squareonejustice.org The Executive Session was created with support from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation as part of the Safety and Justice Challenge, which seeks to reduce over-incarceration by changing the way America thinks about and uses jails. 04 08 14 INTRODUCTION THE CURRENT STATE OF WHY DOES THE PRETRIAL DETENTION PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE MATTER? 18 24 29 THE IMPACT OF WHEN IS PRETRIAL WHERE DO WE GO FROM PRETRIAL DETENTION DETENTION HERE? ALTERNATIVES APPROPRIATE? TO AND SAFEGUARDS AROUND PRETRIAL DETENTION 33 35 37 CONCLUSION ENDNOTES REFERENCES 41 41 42 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS AUTHOR NOTE MEMBERS OF THE EXECUTIVE SESSION ON THE FUTURE OF JUSTICE POLICY 04 THE ‘RADICAL’ NOTION OF THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE “It was the smell of [] death, it was the death of a person’s hope, it was the death of a person’s ability to live the American dream.” That is how Dr. Nneka Jones Tapia described the Cook County Jail where she served as the institution’s warden (from May 2015 to March 2018). This is where we must begin. EXECUTIVE SESSION ON THE FUTURE OF JUSTICE POLICY 05 THE ‘RADICAL’ NOTION OF THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE Any discussion of pretrial detention must Let’s not forget that Kalief Browder spent acknowledge that we subject citizens— three years of his life in Rikers, held on presumed innocent of the crimes with probable cause that he had stolen a backpack which they are charged—to something containing money, a credit card, and an iPod that resembles death.
    [Show full text]
  • Jury Trial Primer in Civil District Court
    Jury Trials in Civil District Court-- Perspectives from the bench & bar 2018 NCDCJ Summer Conference Presenters: District Court Judge Becky Tin, Attorney Walter Burton and Attorney William Corbett Right to Jury Trial—Constitutional • N.C. Constitution, Article I Section 25: In all controversies at law respecting property, the ancient mode of trial by jury is one of the best securities of the rights of the people, and shall remain sacred and inviolable. • This Constitutional provision preserves the right to trial by jury in civil cases where the prerogative for trial by jury existed at common law or by statute at the time the NC Constitution was adopted in 1868. Statutory Right to • The legislature has expanded the right to jury trial to other causes of action by statute, beyond what is protected by the Constitution • For example, parties have a statutory right to trial by jury in actions determining incompetence; allegations of marital misconduct in an alimony claim; summary ejectment actions on appeal from the magistrate; and to establish the contents of a will where the original was destroyed. If in doubt as to whether party has right to a jury trial… • Look through the pattern jury instructions; if instructions are included for the cause of action(s) alleged, then the party is entitled to trial by jury; • If you can’t find it in the pattern instructions, do further case law and statutory research; • Refer to DC Judge Rebecca Knight’s manuscript, The Right to a Jury Trial in Civil Actions in N.C., found on the SOG website that deals with whether a particular cause of action entitles a party to trial by jury; • If all else fails, ask Cheryl Howell or Dona Lewandowski.
    [Show full text]
  • Civil Dispositive Motions: a Basic Breakdown
    Civil Dispositive Motions: A Basic Breakdown 1) Simplified Timeline: Motion for 12(b)(6) Motions JNOV** Summary Judgment Motions* Motion for New Trial Motion Motion for D.V. for D.V. (Rul 10 days Discovery and Mediation Plaintiff‟s Defendant‟s Evidence Evidence Process Complaint Trial Jury‟s Entry of Judgment Filed Begins Verdict * Defendant may move at any time. Plaintiff must wait until 30 days after commencement of action. **Movant must have moved for d.v. after close of evidence. 2) Pre-Trial Motions: Rule 12(b)(6) and Summary Judgment A. Rule 12(b)(6) Motions to Dismiss 1. Challenge the sufficiency of the complaint on its face. Movant asks the court to dismiss the complaint for “failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 2. Standard: The court may grant the motion if the allegations in the complaint are insufficient or defective as a matter of law in properly stating a claim for relief. For example: a) The complaint is for fraud, which requires specific pleading, but a required element of fraud is not alleged. 1 b) The complaint alleges breach of contract, but incorporates by reference (and attaches) a contract that is unenforceable as a matter of law. c) The complaint alleges a claim against a public official in a context in which that official has immunity as a matter of law. 3. The court only looks at the complaint (and documents incorporated by reference). a) If the court looks outside the complaint, the motion is effectively converted to a summary judgment and should be treated under the provisions of Rule 56.
    [Show full text]
  • Rules of Executive Clemency
    RULES OF EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY TABLE OF CONTENTS RULES: 1. STATEMENT OF POLICY 2. ADMINISTRATION 3. PAROLE AND PROBATION 4. CLEMENCY I. Types of Clemency A. Full Pardon B. Pardon Without Firearm Authority C. Pardon for Misdemeanor D. Commutation of Sentence E. Remission of Fines and Forfeitures F. Specific Authority to Own, Possess, or Use Firearms G. Restoration of Civil Rights in Florida II. Conditional Clemency 5. ELIGIBILITY A. Pardons B. Commutations of Sentence C. Remission of Fines and Forfeitures D. Specific Authority to Own, Possess, or Use Firearms E. Restoration of Civil Rights under Florida Law 6. APPLICATIONS A. Application Forms B. Required Supporting Documents C. Optional Supporting Documents D. Applicant Responsibility E. Failure to Meet Requirements F. Notification 7. APPLICATIONS REFERRED TO THE FLORIDA COMMISSION ON OFFENDER REVIEW 8. COMMUTATION OF SENTENCE A. Request for Review B. Referral to the Florida Commission on Offender Review C. Notification D. § 944.30 Cases E. Domestic Violence Case Review 9. AUTOMATIC RESTORATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER FLORIDA LAW WITHOUT A HEARING FOR FELONS WHO HAVE COMPLETED ALL TERMS OF SENTENCE PURSUANT TO AMENDMENT 4 AS DEFINED IN § 98.0751(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2020) A. Criteria for Eligibility B. Action by Clemency Board C. Out-of-State or Federal Convictions 10. RESTORATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER FLORIDA LAW WITH A HEARING FOR FELONS WHO HAVE NOT COMPLETED ALL TERMS OF SENTENCE PURSUANT TO AMENDMENT 4 AS DEFINED IN § 98.0751(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2020) A. Criteria for Eligibility B. Out-of-State or Federal Convictions 11. HEARINGS BY THE CLEMENCY BOARD ON PENDING APPLICATIONS A.
    [Show full text]
  • Pre-Trial Detention Addressing Risk Factors to Prevent Torture and Ill-Treatment
    Detention Monitoring Tool Second edition FACTSHEET Pre-trial detention Addressing risk factors to prevent torture and ill-treatment ‘Long periods of pre-trial custody contribute to overcrowding in prisons, exacerbating the existing problems as regards conditions and relations between the detainees and staff; they also add to the burden on the courts. From the standpoint of preventing ill-treatment, this raises serious concerns for a system already showing signs of stress.’ (UN Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture)1 1. Definition and context 2. What are the main standards? Remand prisoners are detained during criminal Because of its severe and often irreversible negative investigations and pending trial. Pre-trial detention is effects, international law requires that pre-trial detention not a sanction, but a measure to safeguard a criminal should be the exception rather than the rule. procedure. Pre-trial detention is only legitimate where there is a At any one time, an estimated 3.2 million people are reasonable suspicion of the person having committed behind bars awaiting trial, accounting for 30 per cent of the offence, and where detention is necessary and the total prison population worldwide. In some countries, proportionate to prevent them from absconding, pre-trial detainees reportedly constitute the majority of committing another offence, or interfering with the course the prison population, and in some settings even over of justice during pending procedures. This means that 90 per cent of detainees.2 They are legally presumed pre-trial detention is not legitimate where these objectives innocent until proven guilty but may be held in conditions can be achieved through other, less intrusive measures.
    [Show full text]
  • Motions to Suppress Evidence in Superior Court
    Motions to Suppress Evidence in Superior Court Jeff Welty School of Government January 2017 1) Purpose a) A motion to suppress is the exclusive way to seek the exclusion of illegally obtained evidence. See G.S. 15A‐979(d), G.S. 15A‐974. b) Evidence must be suppressed if: i) Exclusion is required by the United States or North Carolina Constitutions. See G.S. 15A‐ 974(1); Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) (holding that the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule applies in state criminal proceedings). (1) The United States Supreme Court has recognized an increasing number of exceptions to the exclusionary rule, most of which apply when an officer has acted in good faith. See, e.g., Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (2011) (exclusionary rule did not apply when officer acted in good faith reliance on case law that was binding at the time of the search); Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (2009) (exclusionary rule did not apply when an officer arrested and searched the defendant based on an arrest warrant that turned out to have been recalled; the error was an isolated recordkeeping mistake that did not implicate the purposes of the exclusionary rule); United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (exclusionary rule did not apply when officer acted in good faith reliance on a search warrant). (2) The North Carolina appellate courts have not recognized similar exceptions to the exclusionary rule under the state constitution. State v. Carter, 322 N.C. 709 (1988) (declining to follow Leon and holding that suppression is required to preserve “the integrity of the judicial branch of government”).
    [Show full text]