Limitations on the Ability to Negotiate Justice: Attorney Perspectives on Guilt, Innocence, and Legal Advice in the Current Plea System, in Psychology, Crim & Law

A defense attorney’s ability to negotiate justice is inhibited by a criminal justice system that often imposes more serious charges and punishments upon individuals who choose to exercise their right to jury trial instead of accepting a plea. Pleading guilty has become more of a tactical decision than a moral one. Defense attorneys must help their clients assess risks and navigate competing interests. Though defendants’ factual guilt or innocence influences the advice that their attorneys provide, both factually-guilty and factually-innocent individuals plead guilty. A study asked 189 criminal defense attorneys how often innocent defendants plead guilty and when they think innocent defendants should plead guilty. The participants then completed two hypothetical vignettes in which they estimated how likely an individual was guilty, how likely the individual would be found guilty, and what advice the attorney would offer. While they could not agree upon the likely proportion of defendants who did so, almost all the attorneys reported having represented clients who claimed to be innocent, but still pled guilty. A majority of participants also identified numerous situations in which innocent defendants should plead guilty and in which they advised their clients to do so. These include securing faster and easier resolutions of cases and avoiding more severe outcomes at trial. The study highlighted the need to reduce discrepancies between charges and sentences at trial and those given in exchange for pleading guilty.

“Results show that in the current system innocent defendants are pleading guilty, and attorneys are advising them to do so in certain cases[.] . . . Most importantly, results suggest that in the current system these attorneys are likely doing the right thing, and protecting their clients from severe consequences of trial.” p. 934