Constitutional rights

[Griffin (OP)]

http://kfor.com/2015/12/02/man-charged-with-felony-for-passing-out-jury-rights-fliers-in-front-of-courthouse/

A judge had a man arrested for passing out pamphlets outside of a courthouse that informed people of their rights while being a juror. Even though no jury existed, he was accused of tampering with the jury which is a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison. The judge who had him arrested gave him a $150,000 bond too. I guess all rights here have completely gone out the window and the government and judicial system can do whatever it wants to.

I just can't believe he was arrested and charged with a felony for passing out pamphlets that inform people of their rights. He did it because judges don't tell people their rights when they are appointed as a jury and passed them to random people. It wasn't like he went to the jury for his trial or someone he knows and passed them info that would make them not find someone guilty. This country is so fucked, I pray that I never have to deal with the police, or judicial system again for the rest of my life.

I swear they get off on fucking people over, I think all judges should have to spend a few years in prison and solitary confinement before they can sentence people to that. I also don't understand how they get to judge people and decide who is right or wrong. I hope our judicial system is completely reformed and changed. It has gotten way out of hand to the point where they can't use common sense, and they use there personal morals to ruin peoples live regardless of if they broke the law or not.

Do you think that plea agreements should be upheld in court and that they shouldn't be allowed to get overrulled by judges. That always pissed me off when I was signing a plea agreement, the prosecution is only going to recommend you get probation but the judge can sentence you to the maximum prison term if he wants to. All a plea agreement is, is the person pleading guilty so that the prosecution will recommend the set terms of the agreement. The judge doesn't have to honor any of it.

A guy I was in jail with the last time I got arrested was arrested for trespassing in an abandoned building when he was homeless. He was sleeping there because he didn't have anywhere to go and he signed a plea agreement for probation and the judge sentenced him to the full 3 year prison term.

I just think that they should matter a little more because they take away most of your rights because you are pleading guilty. You can't appeal the verdict, along with waiving your 5th and 6th amendment rights. You give up a bunch of shit when you sign a plea agreement. I don't think judges should have supreme rule.

[Pullmyhair.]

When you are entering a plea agreement, the judge has to agree or disagree to the terms before the plea is actually entered. So, if the judge doesn't agree to probation/community service/whatever the conditions of the plea agreement, the defendant can withdraw or change their plea.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/can-the-judge-reject-plea-deal.html

And yes, judges should absolutely be able to reject plea agreements. Do you think a judge should be able to reject a plea agreement that would, for example, give a child molester probation?

[Morfy]

I don't like to get into the habit of blaming the victim, but in cases like this, although he should be protected constitutionally, the reality of the situation is that: if you piss off someone who has power, you will likely feel them flex their power in your direction.


As a matter of survival, or being a wimp, its best not to piss off: anyone with a firearm, judges, higher-up politicians, bosses, anyone who could negatively-influence your life.


Still, there are kids who will poke a hornet nest--despite being warned, just to see what happens.


I've heard of a divorced dad, unhappy with the judge's divorce settlement, wrote an online review, which the judge didn't care much for.  Judgie sent him to jail until he removed his online review (which, may not even be possible). [watch Divorce Inc. to see the story]

[jdub]

Fucking a-hole judge. Same with the guy in your story morfalini. The cops, DA's, and judges keeping pushing the citizenry and eventually the citizenry will snap back.

[Guts]

Reading this shit makes me physically hot...

[DirtyJerzy]

When I was going to trial for a ganja related case in ca I had many supporters from the medical mj community there passing out fliers on jury nullification. They kicked them all off the property, so they held up signs outside the parking lot like "jury nullification, google it".

One of my friends was charged with jury tampering and when it seemed like the thing was going my way, the prosecutor asked for, and was granted a mistrial because of "the jury pool had been tainted". Fucking didn't bring that shit up for days, but as soon as it became obvious at least a couple jurors were on my side, he pulled that shit.

 The major thrust of our argument for jury nullification was this: the charges against me were were all pot related, which is a schedule 1 narcotic. The governments definition of schedule 1 is ".........The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical treatment use in the U.S."  This happend in Cali where since 1996 the people have recognized mmj's medicinal value, and thus the law is flawed, obsolete and therefore should be invalid.

Also jury nulification is a right of the people. There is one place, New Hampshire I believe where ONE righteous judge actually informs jurors of this. Not in Cali though. They don't like informed jurors one bit.



There's no justice, it's just-us.


I just actually read the article, what fucking bullshit. He did exactly as FIJA advises, pass them out before the jury is seated, to all potential jurors, this way they can't misconstrue it as "jury tampering", as the jury has not been picked yet. Really good shit FIJA IS

[Griffin (OP)]

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 the guilty verdict on your record without any penalties what so ever or he can throw the book at you and give you the maximum penalty allowed for the crime you plead guilty to in the plea agreement.

So even if your agreement says you agree to plead guilty if you will get probation, and that is what the state prosecutors will recommend for your sentencing. The judge can completely disregard the plea agreement, and penalize you to the maximum of what your charge is.

The judge can give you the maximum prison time allowed for the charge you plead guilty to as part of your plea agreement and he can give you the highest fine allowed for the charge you just plead guilty to. Since you signed the plea agreement and already plead guilty to the charge there is nothing you can do about it after the judge sentences you.

Part of the plea agreement is that you waive your 5th and 6th amendment rights and have no way to appeal the verdict, You can't ask for a retrial, resentencing, or any of the other things that you can no longer do because you have already plead guilty.

Am I wrong in how I understand this?

[corlene]

If you plea not guilty at trial and lose, the judges here will fuckin slam you.

Sometimes although unfortunate it's better to take the deal if you've done the crime.

All judges here, except one(he's a real fucking asshole) accept negotiated pleas, so long as the prosecution and defense are on board.

That asshole judge just gave a guy in his young twenties 60 years for a violation, when the defense and DA offered to sentence him as a youthful offender and he would've been out on his 24th bday.

[Sand and Water]

I knew from personally having folks in the system try to screw up my life that this prejudice is alive and well. I was "fortunate" in my circumstances I fought back each time and "won" (the personal toll on anybody is a whole different thing).

@Griffin, I *thought* though, that anyone could appeal to say, their States Supreme Court? Or file a complaint (would have to provide transcripts of hearings which isn't easy if money isn't readily available), with the Bar Association?  I knew judges *could* override the terms of the deal, but these examples are wild. $150,000 for "jury tampering" by informing people of the law??

 So unless somebody's got big $$ they're up the creek if they agree to a plea & the judge doesn't like them??  What the hells the point of a plea if you're *still* at risk?  I believe you, G--it's just this is so very wrong to me--not a thing in the world to do with justice imo

[Pullmyhair.]

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 the guilty verdict on your record without any penalties what so ever or he can throw the book at you and give you the maximum penalty allowed for the crime you plead guilty to in the plea agreement.

So even if your agreement says you agree to plead guilty if you will get probation, and that is what the state prosecutors will recommend for your sentencing. The judge can completely disregard the plea agreement, and penalize you to the maximum of what your charge is.

The judge can give you the maximum prison time allowed for the charge you plead guilty to as part of your plea agreement and he can give you the highest fine allowed for the charge you just plead guilty to. Since you signed the plea agreement and already plead guilty to the charge there is nothing you can do about it after the judge sentences you.

Part of the plea agreement is that you waive your 5th and 6th amendment rights and have no way to appeal the verdict, You can't ask for a retrial, resentencing, or any of the other things that you can no longer do because you have already plead guilty.

Am I wrong in how I understand this?

Yes, you are wrong (I don't mean that in a bitchy way, just answering your question). Obviously it varies state to state and jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but the most common way it's applied is that a judge can reject a plea agreement, but in doing so they're also rejecting your plea. In order for plea to be accepted as part of a plea agreement, the judge has to uphold the terms of the agreement. Read the link I posted above.

[Griffin (OP)]

You may be right pullmyhair, especially in regards if a plea deal is in regards to a defendants testimony on another case. However from my understanding and the way both my plea deals were given to me the DA and my lawyer told me that these are the terms of the plea agreement yadayadayada and that in return for me pleading guilty the DA will recommend the sentencing set forth in the plea agreement, but the judge has the right to sentence me to more or less than what the plea agreement states and what the DA is recommending.

This maybe because the plea agreement stated that the prosecution will recommend probation but that terms of the sentencing is open, meaning the judge can sentence me to the maximum penalty for the crime I plead guilty to even if it states the DA will only recommend probation. I didn't see that in the plea agreement and it wasn't explained to me that, that was the reason the judge can sentence me to whatever no matter what the plea agreement says and the prosecution agreed to recommend me for sentencing.

What this translated to me and the other people I was in jail with who were defending there cases was that no matter what the plea deal said the judge can sentence me to more or less of what the plea agreement said would be my sentence. That even though your plea agreement states in the plea agreement that the prosecution will recommend only probation or whatever the judge can still sentence you to the full prison term allowed under the crime you are pleading guilty to.

That could of meant that in small print somewhere that it was stated that even though this is what your agreeing to in the terms of your agreement that sentencing was still open to the judges discretion. But me and all of the people I was around who were discussing plea deals and who had been through it was that all the plea agreement was is a recommendation from the states prosecution and that the judge has full reign on what he feels the sentence should be.

I do think that sex offenders are let off to easily way to often, and I personally have seen non-violent drug offenders get more prison time then sex offenders. In those cases I would be okay with the judge saying that even the plea agreement you signed says the state recommends no prison time the judge sentences him to life with out parole. However I think that burden should be held on the states prosecution to be good enough to find the person guilty and give them the full penalty available.

I don't think that judges should be able to do whatever they want and use the fact that you plead guilty because you believed you would be getting a lower sentence specified in a plea agreement to sentence you to whatever he wants. Most people sign plea agreements because it usually will say that you get a lower sentence or crime than what you were previously looking at.

You maybe completely right that in most or all plea agreements there is a part that says that it is open sentencing and that the judge can give you whatever sentence he wants but that until the last plea agreement I took I was not told this. I had no idea that a judge only had to go by the sentencing guidelines of what the crime you plead guilty to not what stated in your plea agreement.

Most plea deals offer a giving you a lower crime than what you were originally charged with anyway offering more incentive to sign it. Which I think is bullshit anyway, they charge you with a crime and get you to plead guilty to it even though you did not do that crime. You only sign it because it usually comes with lowered sentencing guidelines so if you were looking to 5-10 years for your original crime that you might of actually done they say they will charge you with a lower crime that has a sentencing guideline of 3-5 years even though you didn't do that crime at all but you take it because either way you get less time.

You maybe 100% right and that all or most plea agreements have some small print saying that sentencing is open and that even thoguh the DA is recommending 4 years the judge can give you the maximum time for the crime and sentence you to 10 years. The judge does have to agree to the terms of the plea agreement and the charge that they are dropping it to. He does not however have to agree with the amount the DA recommends for the sentence but that doesn't mean that the plea agreement must be dropped.

As far as sentencing goes all the plea agreement is a recommendation from the state that they think 5 years an acceptable sentence. The judge can still give you the maximum term of the charge you plead guilty to in the plea agreement even if it is a lower charge than you originally had with lower sentencing guidelines he still has the right to disregard the recommendation of 5 years and give you 10 years because he sees that as a more just and fit sentece for the crime you committed.

Like i said you may be 100% right that in all if not most plea agreements that it says that it is open sentencing and that the sentence that is highlighted in your plea agreement is just a recommendation but from all most every single person I have talked to they were not informed of this. They thought that the plea agreement was a set term that if they signed to plead guilty to the agreement then they had to be sentenced in exact accordance of what the agreement says and that is simply not true at all.

It wasn't until my last case that this was explained to me by my lawyer. He said a plea agreement sentencing guidelines are only a recommendation by the states prosecution and the judge has final say on what the sentencing will be. If he will agree to it or not, but that part of the sentencing will not happen until after you have already plead guilty to crime set forth in your plea agreement.

The judge can only sentence you to the maximum term of the crime you plead guilty to. He can't sentence you to the maximum terms of the charges that you were originally charged with because like I said with a plea agreement often times they will give you a lesser crime that holds lower sentencing standards than what you were originally charged with often giving more incentive for you to take it.

You are 100% right that the judge has to agree to the plea agreement terms after the DA and defendants counsel have agreed to it before it can be given to the defendent for him to decide whether or not he is willing to accept the terms of that agreement. He doesn't have to agree to the DA's sentencing guidelines but that doesn't stop them from being able to proceed with the agreement and for the defendant to eventually plead guilty to that plea guilty and then the judge can over rule the sentencing guidelines set forth and then give whatever punishment he sees fit as long as it is within the guidelines for the crime that was plead guilty too.

This is very rarely told to the defendant when given and signing a plea agreement. They hardly ever know that the sentencing is just a recommendation and that judge can over rule them and give the maximum punishment to the crime even if that is not what was recommended by the states prosecuting district attorney in court or on the plea agreement that the defendant signed and plead guilty to under the premise that his sentence would be the one stated on the plea agreement and in court.

I am just saying that defendants are very rarely told this and are often baffled when they signed an agreement thinking they would get probation and then the judge sentences him to 10 years in prison or whatever the maximum prison term for the crime he plead guilty to in the plea agreement.

a plea agreement is nothing more than a legal paper that usually gives the defendant a lower crime than he actually committed and it is only a recommendation from the states office of what they think the punishment should be and the judge can completely go against the sentencing recommendation and give him more than he agreed to and defendants are not often told this and sometimes there may not be open sentencing in the plea agreement meaning the judge does have to abide by the courts recommendation on sentencing but that doesnt happen very often