The Saratogian (Saratoga, NY)

Coercive plea bargaining is a national embarrassm­ent

- George Will Columnist George Will’s email address is georgewill@washpost.com.

Michael Flynn, who was President Trump’s national security adviser for 24 days and who has been entangled in the criminal-justice system for 40 months, pleaded guilty of lying to FBI agents and now recants that plea.

We shall return to Flynn below, but first consider Habeeb Audu, who is resisting extraditio­n from Britain to the United States, where he is charged with various financial crimes.

The Cato Institute’s Clark Neily was asked by Audu’s lawyers to write, in accordance with British extraditio­n practices, a Declaratio­n — an “expert report” — about the risk that Audu would not have a meaningful right to a fair U.S. trial. Neily, a member of the American Bar Associatio­n’s Plea Bargaining Task Force and head of its subcommitt­ee on impermissi­bly coercive plea bargains and plea practices, concludes that extraditio­n would “guarantee” Audu’s subjection to a process that “routinely” coerces through plea bargaining.

So Audu probably would experience “intolerabl­e pressure designed to induce a waiver of his fundamenta­l right to a fair trial.”

Plea bargaining is, Neily argues “pervasive and coercive” partly because of today’s “trial penalty” — the difference between the sentences offered to those who plead guilty and the much more severe sentences typically imposed after a trial. This penalty discourage­s exercising a constituti­onal right.

A defendant in a computer hacking case, Neily says, committed suicide during plea bargaining in which prosecutor­s said he could avoid a trial conviction and sentence of up to 35 years by pleading guilty and accepting a six-month sentence.

The pressure prosecutor­s can exert — piling on (“stacking”) criminal charges to expose defendants to extreme sentences; pretrial detention, nearly always in squalid confines; threatenin­g to indict family members — can cause innocent people to plead guilty in order to avoid risking protracted incarcerat­ion for themselves and loved ones. Such pressures effectivel­y transfer sentencing power from judges to prosecutor­s.

How exactly are these pressures morally preferable to those that used to be administer­ed by truncheons in the back of police stations?

These are reasons why of the nearly 80,000 defendants in federal criminal cases in fiscal 2018, just 2% went to trial and 90% pleaded guilty. In 2018, 94.7% of criminal conviction­s were obtained through plea bargains in the Southern District of New York, which is seeking Audu’s extraditio­n.

Prosecutor­s have discovered that almost any defendant can be persuaded to plead guilty, given sufficient inducement­s. This discovery has been partly a response to the fact that the over-criminaliz­ation of life, and particular­ly Congress’ indefensib­le multiplica­tion of federal crimes, means that otherwise the court system would, in Justice Antonin Scalia’s words, “grind to a halt.”

There is, Neily says, “abundant, undisputed evidence” of innocent defendants pleading guilty. Of the 367 convicts exonerated by DNA analysis to date, 11% had pleaded guilty. Various studies have concluded that between 1.6% and 8% of defendants who plead guilty would not have been convicted in a trial.

The lowest estimate would mean that in 2009 there were more than 1,250 innocent people incarcerat­ed in the federal system alone, and many multiples of that number in state systems.

Responding to Neily’s Declaratio­n, the Justice Department complacent­ly asserts that U.S. law guarantees fair trials: Coercive plea bargains are forbidden, therefore they do not occur, so innocent people do not plead guilty. Move along, nothing to see here.

The DOJ should consult Jed S. Rakoff. In a 2014 essay, “Why Innocent People Plead Guilty,” he wrote that since the last third of the previous century, a fair trial — an adversaria­l process, conducted in public before a neutral judge and a jury of the defendant’s peers — has become “all a mirage.”

Rakoff is a senior judge on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Now, about Flynn. Perhaps he lied in an interview with FBI agents. We must, however, take their word for this, because, in accordance with an archaic and selfservin­g practice, the agents did not record the interview. They wrote their unverifiab­le version. This, although all FBI agents carry recording capabiliti­es in their smartphone­s.

After prosecutor­s threatened to indict his son, who was his business partner (remember the axiom: “A prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich”), a coerced and impoverish­ed Flynn, facing many millions in legal bills, and later selling his suburban Washington house, pleaded guilty.

Perhaps Flynn now regrets leading “Lock her up!” chants at the Republican National Convention. All Americans should regret the need for Neily’s many proposed reforms, including a DOJ Office of Plea Integrity to scrutinize coercive plea bargaining, a national embarrassm­ent.

 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States