"Trial Tax" under review by Ohio Supreme Court

[DGUtley]

I do not criminal work whatsoever, but I've long heard that there's a 'trial tax' in our system and I am a strict adherent to the protection of everyone's constitutional rights. A 'trial tax' is that if you are guilty and you make the state try the case by rejecting a plea, you're going to get a stiffer sentence. Well.... this trial judge in Ohio after a guilty conviction made the comment: “You went to trial, you gambled, you lost. You had no defense…You did this. You had no defense and you wouldn’t take responsibility. You wanted to go to trial. All right, big winner you are. Six years, Ohio Department of Corrections.”

On appeal, the Defendant argued that his sentence was unconstitutional in that he was punished for exercising his constitutional right to trial by jury. The court of appeals affirmed. During oral argument before our friends in Columbus, this question was asked:

“Counsel, do you think it is ever appropriate to look at and comment
on a defendant exercising their constitutional right to have the state
of Ohio prove beyond a reasonable doubt their guilt of the crimes as
charged as a factor to be considered when imposing a sentence?”

Chief Justice O’Connor, to the prosecutor. When he responded that it would have been better had the judge not said those things, the Chief rejoined, “I’ll take that as a no.” Decision expected in about 90 days.

Should there be a trial tax? Thoughts on the appropriateness of the trial court's comments below?

http://www.legallyspeakingohio.com/2...v-malik-rahab/

[Common]

No there shouldnt, as you said everyone has a right to a trial and you should not be punished additionally for rejecting a plea deal.

[Newpublius]

I do not criminal work whatsoever, but I've long heard that there's a 'trial tax' in our system and I am a strict adherent to the protection of everyone's constitutional rights. A 'trial tax' is that if you are guilty and you make the state try the case by rejecting a plea, you're going to get a stiffer sentence. Well.... this trial judge in Ohio after a guilty conviction made the comment: “You went to trial, you gambled, you lost. You had no defense…You did this. You had no defense and you wouldn’t take responsibility. You wanted to go to trial. All right, big winner you are. Six years, Ohio Department of Corrections.”

On appeal, the Defendant argued that his sentence was unconstitutional in that he was punished for exercising his constitutional right to trial by jury. The court of appeals affirmed. During oral argument before our friends in Columbus, this question was asked:

“Counsel, do you think it is ever appropriate to look at and comment
on a defendant exercising their constitutional right to have the state
of Ohio prove beyond a reasonable doubt their guilt of the crimes as
charged as a factor to be considered when imposing a sentence?”

Chief Justice O’Connor, to the prosecutor. When he responded that it would have been better had the judge not said those things, the Chief rejoined, “I’ll take that as a no.” Decision expected in about 90 days.

Should there be a trial tax? Thoughts on the appropriateness of the trial court's comments below?

http://www.legallyspeakingohio.com/2...v-malik-rahab/

No trial tax. Let's call it a 'plea discount' instead.

[Peter1469]

No there shouldn't be a trial tax. Clearly unconstitutional.

In the military you can't just plead guilty. You have to convince the judge that you are guilty. Typically though a direct examination where you admit to each element of the offense. So their is no guilty plea to just get a good deal.

[patrickt]

I don't think the sentence should be increased because the defendant goes to trial.

I do think that if the prosecution tries a case when they should reasonably know the defendant is innocent or should reasonably know there was no crime committed then they should have to pay all of the defendants legal expenses and damages from the wrongful prosecution.

I also think that a defense attorney that goes to court with a guilty client and a frivolous defense and the defendant is convicted the defense attorney should pay the cost of the prosecution.

[resister]

Pure vindictiveness for making them do extra work. I'm against plea bargaining also, some innocent people end up with a record and doing time over fear of an uncertain trial.

[Peter1469]

I don't think the sentence should be increased because the defendant goes to trial.

I do think that if the prosecution tries a case when they should reasonably know the defendant is innocent or should reasonably know there was no crime committed then they should have to pay all of the defendants legal expenses and damages from the wrongful prosecution.

I also think that a defense attorney that goes to court with a guilty client and a frivolous defense and the defendant is convicted the defense attorney should pay the cost of the prosecution.

If a prosecutor believes a defendant is innocent he cannot file charges.

[decedent]

I do not criminal work whatsoever, but I've long heard that there's a 'trial tax' in our system and I am a strict adherent to the protection of everyone's constitutional rights. A 'trial tax' is that if you are guilty and you make the state try the case by rejecting a plea, you're going to get a stiffer sentence. Well.... this trial judge in Ohio after a guilty conviction made the comment: “You went to trial, you gambled, you lost. You had no defense…You did this. You had no defense and you wouldn’t take responsibility. You wanted to go to trial. All right, big winner you are. Six years, Ohio Department of Corrections.”

On appeal, the Defendant argued that his sentence was unconstitutional in that he was punished for exercising his constitutional right to trial by jury. The court of appeals affirmed. During oral argument before our friends in Columbus, this question was asked:

“Counsel, do you think it is ever appropriate to look at and comment
on a defendant exercising their constitutional right to have the state
of Ohio prove beyond a reasonable doubt their guilt of the crimes as
charged as a factor to be considered when imposing a sentence?”

Chief Justice O’Connor, to the prosecutor. When he responded that it would have been better had the judge not said those things, the Chief rejoined, “I’ll take that as a no.” Decision expected in about 90 days.

Should there be a trial tax? Thoughts on the appropriateness of the trial court's comments below?

http://www.legallyspeakingohio.com/2...v-malik-rahab/

This is unconstitutional. It not only violates the 8th Amendment but it ignores the idea of proportional sentencing. The sentence must be proportionate to the crime and only the crime -- not what goes on in the courthouse.


Trials should be encouraged in an adversarial justice system, not plea deals. The assumption of innocence must be maintained throughout.

Liberty isn't an experiment.

[patrickt]

If a prosecutor believes a defendant is innocent he cannot file charges.

Does the name Nifong ring a bell? Where I worked, I proved to the D.A. that a rape never happened. He agreed. But, he still took the accused to trial. Why? It was an election year and he wasn't going to get on the wrong side of women's groups. There was a hung jury and the woman's group raised hell so he tried the poor $#@! a second time. He was acquitted.

I testified in another jurisdiction on an armed robbery case where the defendent was clearly not guilty, the police reports indicated he was not guilty. The only evidence was a wannabee cop working in a fast food restaurant identifying the accused. The jury spent less than ten minutes walking to the jury room, voting, and returning with an acquittal on all charges. The defense attorney had embarrassed the deputy DA in court a year before and it was payback time.

A man accused of felony shoplifting went to trial with a psychologist, not a medical doctor, testifying that he had an allergy to all plastic and when he touched plastic he had instant amnesia and he was unaware he was taking merchandise from the store and putting it in his car. I would consider that frivolous. The judge seemed to.

I arrested a man, a bad man, for kidnapping and rape involving two separate victims. While he was in jail I established that he was innocent of the rape because he had a valid alibi for the time of the rape. When I told the Deputy DA he said, "I think we can get a conviction."
"But, he didn't do it."
"I still think we can get a conviction. He's a bad guy and we can get him more time."

Please don't tell me prosecutors can't prosecute someone they think is innocent. Please don't tell me attorneys, on both sides, can't suborn perjury. Please don't tell me that prosecuting attorneys don't commit prosecutorial misconduct by not disclosing exculpatory evidence to the defense or even for destroying investigative and lab reports that don't support the prosecution.

And, how often do you think the prosecuting attorney makes absolutely certain the victim of a crime knows who to point to in the courtroom when asked, "Do you see the man who beat you with club in this courtroom today?"

I was in court and was asked that question and said, "I assume it's the guy sitting at the defense table with the public defender."
"Assume? Can't you identify him?"
"Not a chance. The guy I arrested had red hair down to his waist and a full beard. This guy is clean shaven from the top of his head down. The guy I arrested was wearing this glasses. This guy isn't wearing glasses. The guy I arrested was as tall as that guy but maybe fifty pounds heavier. If his fingerprints match, it's the same guy."

But, we had people three years after a crime, sit on the witness stand and identify the crook beyond a shadow of a doubt.

What's called the Criminal Justice System is a corrupt game that benefits attorneys and criminals.

[resister]

Does the name Nifong ring a bell? Where I worked, I proved to the D.A. that a rape never happened. He agreed. But, he still took the accused to trial. Why? It was an election year and he wasn't going to get on the wrong side of women's groups. There was a hung jury and the woman's group raised hell so he tried the poor $#@! a second time. He was acquitted.

I testified in another jurisdiction on an armed robbery case where the defendent was clearly not guilty, the police reports indicated he was not guilty. The only evidence was a wannabee cop working in a fast food restaurant identifying the accused. The jury spent less than ten minutes walking to the jury room, voting, and returning with an acquittal on all charges. The defense attorney had embarrassed the deputy DA in court a year before and it was payback time.

A man accused of felony shoplifting went to trial with a psychologist, not a medical doctor, testifying that he had an allergy to all plastic and when he touched plastic he had instant amnesia and he was unaware he was taking merchandise from the store and putting it in his car. I would consider that frivolous. The judge seemed to.

I arrested a man, a bad man, for kidnapping and rape involving two separate victims. While he was in jail I established that he was innocent of the rape because he had a valid alibi for the time of the rape. When I told the Deputy DA he said, "I think we can get a conviction."
"But, he didn't do it."
"I still think we can get a conviction. He's a bad guy and we can get him more time."

Please don't tell me prosecutors can't prosecute someone they think is innocent. Please don't tell me attorneys, on both sides, can't suborn perjury. Please don't tell me that prosecuting attorneys don't commit prosecutorial misconduct by not disclosing exculpatory evidence to the defense or even for destroying investigative and lab reports that don't support the prosecution.

And, how often do you think the prosecuting attorney makes absolutely certain the victim of a crime knows who to point to in the courtroom when asked, "Do you see the man who beat you with club in this courtroom today?"

I was in court and was asked that question and said, "I assume it's the guy sitting at the defense table with the public defender."
"Assume? Can't you identify him?"
"Not a chance. The guy I arrested had red hair down to his waist and a full beard. This guy is clean shaven from the top of his head down. The guy I arrested was wearing this glasses. This guy isn't wearing glasses. The guy I arrested was as tall as that guy but maybe fifty pounds heavier. If his fingerprints match, it's the same guy."

But, we had people three years after a crime, sit on the witness stand and identify the crook beyond a shadow of a doubt.

What's called the Criminal Justice System is a corrupt game that benefits attorneys and criminals.

Prosecutors caught doing this need life in prison, in general pop..