Plea bargains: Deal or no Deal for Clay County?

I know it has been a long time since I have been able to continue my series (my sincerest apologies to all readers and those interviewed). However, I have had some rather pressing health issues come up that are still in the process of being solved.

This will be a reading of how plea bargains work via Prosecutor Lee Reberger and Deputy Chief Prosecutor Kim Jackson and my hope is that this blog will clear up some misconceptions of why these deals take place, how they are set up and what they entail before ever making such a deal in the first place.

Thanks in advance for sticking around through my long absence and let's learn something together!

I approached Reberger about the fact that there seems to us, the public, to be an inordinate amount of plea bargains going on in cases that we just don't seem to understand why that should be at all.

I was also curious as a member of the general public about how one goes about becoming an "informant" or getting lessened time for providing information about another to perhaps lessen their sentence.

Do people who provide information about other crimes do less time and how does that whole deal work anyway?

Is it the police who make the deal or solely the prosecutor? Is it really that easy to just slither around in the system and get less time for a maximum crime merely because of what we know?

I will let the prosecutors fill you in on all the details.

"Often times, people provide information and they will not receive any guarantee, any commitment nor any comment," Reberger said. "It's almost as if they cooperate at their own risk. I guess cooperate at their own risk isn't the right way to phrase it, but cooperating knowing there may not be any return on it.

"Law enforcement are very clear that they cannot commit, they cannot promise and cannot 'go to bat' for the accused. Law enforcement can simply tell me how this individual has been helpful or cooperative and then whether or not later in the process that is involved in a plea is solely at the discretion of the State of Indiana and the Prosecutor's Office. We do not shoot from the hip, we do not make commitments early on. That is inappropriate."

"The police do not either," Jackson added. "If someone searches out a police officer and wants to provide information, the police are very clear that they cannot make a commitment for us.

"One of the things that happens a great deal, which I think the public is not aware of, is that a lot of times, people will say they are going to provide information and cooperate and then they don't. That is very common and that happens a great deal of the time. So the police have learned over the years to be skeptical and see what pans out before they even bring it to our attention."

I then asked both prosecutors that if there was one major misconception that we the public may have about what they do in court, what do they feel that would be?

They both agreed that the dismissal of counts seemed to be the most confusing part for those who read the papers and don't understand just how the sentencing process works according to Indiana State law. Now, I could get technical here because they did provide me with a lot of information, but I am going to save that technical stuff for my interview with Judge Trout. I will try to put it in a nutshell for you as they explained to me.

The largest most severe charge may be a felony and in the commission (act) of said felony, they also have committed misdemeanors as well. The way they explained it to me is that if you already have the charge for the large sentence, then to add on the small misdemeanor charges becomes "double jeopardy."

Let us try and think of it this way: If a person commits murder, then do we charge them with a misdemeanor for carrying the gun they used? I know some would say, "Yes! Absolutely!" However, there are standards in sentencing that both prosecutors and judges must follow.

Again, I want to stress that each case is specific unto itself, but if someone is pulled over in a traffic stop, and they are in possession of meth, and obviously have enough in their car to be selling it or they have it bagged for sale, then should they be charged with distributing or personal use? It could go either way.

So prosecutors tend to charge with the higher degree of crime if the case warrants it. To have a larger crime and then a smaller associated crime with it, the larger offense will cancel out the smaller offense that may go with it. Take being charged with burglary and then a misdemeanor theft charge with it as an example.

Jackson made a great point in this statement:

"People often see a person charged with three or four different counts and they're mystified or irritated that they see the person has only pled to one or been found guilty of one and the rest of the charges have gone to the wayside. Part of that is the way we charge things to be conservative and to make sure we have choices for jury's and judges, but also with double jeopardy is that they couldn't possibly have done all of them."

"A perfect example is the other day, we had a person noticed by the police for their driving, which was reckless (which is a B misdemeanor)," Reberger said. "During the investigation (the stop), the police realized they might be intoxicated (which is a C misdemeanor, operating while intoxicated). They then realized there was another person in the car that may be at-risk (that is an A misdemeanor, operating a vehicle while intoxicated, endangering a person). Police were notified that this person had a prior conviction of operating a vehicle while intoxicated, which now means if they get in trouble for this, it's a D felony. So now they are charged with four counts. You can't be charged with all of them because they are all basically the same minus the D felony of second offense. So the person pled to the D felony, the highest level, the most serious crime, the other charges had to be dismissed by operation of law."

Reberger then stated that one of the greater challenges they face is helping people form reasonable expectations of what the system can do. People need to understand that a greater sentence is given to those who commit larger crimes. A run over toe with a bicycle is not going to result in a person doing major jail time. To expect those smaller (not lesser emotionally) crimes that happen that some expect to result in larger penalties, fines or consequences just cannot end in that result due to the laws and sentencing guidelines that have been put into place in order to keep discretion in sentencing and punishment.

Now at this point, you must be thinking, "Uh, Karen? You kind of brushed over that whole plea bargain issue at the beginning and let's get back on topic!"

LOL.

Truth is this. We have two judges for the county of Clay. They handle it all. Domestic Relations, Criminal, Civil, Juvenile, Traffic, Estates. You name it. It's all on Judge Akers and Judge Trout's backs. I know this by far is not the largest county in Indiana, but you figure two, just two judges, handle the whole caseload.

Let's try it with some math for a moment.

Let's say there are on average 2,000 cases a year that go through the courts (by the way, that's about the standard number).

That's 1,000 cases a year per judge. Now, there are 365 days in a year. Are you following me here/ Now, divide 365 into 1,000 and what do you get? That is 2.74 cases each day. Seems harmless enough, right? Did you remember to deduct holidays, weekends and don't judges deserve vacation time like we all get, too? Ah, now you see.

OK, two judges, two prosecutors. Again, I refer to the math.

Here is what plea bargaining does to help our county.

First off, a plea bargain is a definite plea. There are definitive sentencing guidelines and what they get, they serve, no short time! Now, the average jury trial (if they are done quickly) lasts two weeks. The average plea bargain trial? One day.

Now, if you were waiting to get into the courts for a case, naturally by mathematics alone, you couldn't get in within a year or two if there were no plea bargains. The cost of a jury (they do get paid for their time) and if it is a sequestered jury then their hotel rooms, food, etc., must be paid for by the court as they are doing their civil duty. So the money saved is enormous thanks to plea bargains as well.

To take a plea bargain is to say to the public and to the courts, "I know I did it. I am not trying to prove my innocence as the preponderance of evidence proves I did it and now I just want my sentence and to get on with my life."

Now that you know how the whole double jeopardy thing works, then you can also see how beneficial plea-bargaining is to us as citizens (tax dollars) and to victims (they get to see justice served quickly).

I will leave you with the words of Reberger.

"A plea bargain is bargaining with an individual on a case by case basis," he said.

Thanks to both Reberger and Jackson for their time and information and stay tuned as my interview with Judge Trout is forthcoming and will blow you away!

Stay tuned ...

Karen Meister can be contacted at ksframeofmind@yahoo.com.