Is Plea-Bargaining and Testimony for Leniency Justice?

If you have read my bio or an earlier post, you know that I am incarcerated; a conviction in Iowa and one in Illinois.  Both of my convictions were solely the result of cooperating co-defendants who received lighter sentences to point the finger at me.  The fact of the matter is that in Iowa I did not do a damn thing, unless you count being a jerk and asshole to the prosecutor as a crime.  No, I am not saying that I was not involved in the robbery of drug dealers and the resale of drugs;  however, the ones that I actually committed were thrown out of court.  My real crime was that on each occasion that the prosecutor had to dismiss a charge I made it a point to let him know that he was a dimwit, who was otherwise unemployable, and would starve to death if he were not allowed to sup at the public trough. Exactly what a twenty-six-year old, wannabe thug would be expected to do.  That was a mistake.  For the case in which I was eventually convicted in Iowa, he offered me an out-of-court settlement of ten years with a seven-year mandatory;  I refused it, because on the worst day this was no more than a five-year conspiracy case that carried no mandatory. He ultimately ended up offering a deal to the people who actually beat, robbed, and terrorized the drug dealer and his family.  The deal was a ten-year sentence with no mandatory to “testi-lie” against me.  They accepted the proposition and all served three years or less.  Here I sit, nearly nineteen years later.

If I were to attempt to pay a witness for testimony this would be considered a bribe and against the law, but if the state’s attorney does the same it is justice.  I would have only been able to offer a witness money, which of course is an incentive for the unscrupulous to lie, but the state could offer freedom, a thing that some of the most principled people would commit treachery in order to keep.  One has to wonder if plea-bargains should even be part of our judicial system.  Plea-bargaining, although it has permeated the fabric of the U.S. justice system, may not even be legal (Lynch Jul2011).  The American “Founding Fathers” made no provisions to govern this kind of contract between the government and its citizens, in fact, quite the contrary;  they made provisions for all crimes—excepting treason—to be tried by jury.

Have you heard of Sonya Singleton?  She is a young person that had but one real shortcoming, she was loyal to friends.  Therefore, when she was approached by law enforcement and questioned about alleged drug dealing by an acquaintance she suggested that they do something outlandish, their jobs.  She would be taught a costly lesson for remaining mostly silent.

These investigators and prosecutors eventually got their man, who in turn struck a deal.  They wanted to teach this destitute, minimum wage earning mother, Singleton, a lesson.  The drug dealer would testify that not only was Ms. Singleton well aware of his activities and condoned them, but that she herself was in fact a drug dealer.  He received a reduced sentence while Ms. Singleton was convicted on his lies.  The finding in her trial was initially reversed as a three-judge appeal panel agreed with her contention that the only witness against her had been bribed, as he testified for leniency, which was in fact even more valuable than money.  However, the full federal appellate court reinstated her conviction.  Part of their reasoning for the reinstatement of her conviction was that such a ruling would destroy years of jurisprudence, and creates a backlog—someone would have to work.  The United States Supreme Court refused to review the case.  Plea bargaining allowed an admitted dishonest person to do a further dishonest thing, in street vernacular it is called “testi-lying,” that is, testifying and lying.  It resulted in a reduced sentence for the testi-liar, and ruined the life of one who was innocent or alternatively less guilty.

Federal rule 18 U.S.C. §201(C) (2) plainly states that anyone who gives or promises something of value to someone for or because of their testimony, that was given under oath, has committed bribery and shall be fined, sentenced to two years, or both.  Yet, politics and status quo, rather than law, justice, and morality continue to win out.

I re-think my own decision often.  Even given the serious nature of the crimes that I actually did commit in Illinois, had I not demanded to go to trial in Iowa I would have been home with my family nearly nine years ago.  It is a heck of a dilemma; either take the plea or exercise your right to a jury of your peers and face a punishment that is 500% worse than what is being offered by the prosecutor.  If a citizen is forced to relinquish their right to vote, it is called disenfranchisement.  If ones’ right to their privacy of person is impeded it is rightly termed sexual harassment.  If someone who is similarly situated as another, but is treated adversely different, then their right of equal protection has been violated.  With those examples being the criterion to measure freedoms and rights in America, how can we—in good conscience—consider  being threatened with excessive loss of liberty, freedom, or even life, for demanding the right to a trial by peers, justice?