The Unexonerated: Factually Innocent Defendants Who Plead Guilty

As illustrated during the murder trial of the “West Memphis Three,” factually innocent defendants often plead guilty—even when their innocence is known or highly suspected. The innocent defendants do so to dismiss lingering criminal charges, obtain immediate or imminent freedom, or avoid harsh alternative punishments. Three features of the criminal justice system drive this phenomenon. First, there is a perceived need that defendants must plead guilty because the justice system would collapse upon itself if the majority of cases were not resolved through plea bargaining. Second, higher minimum and maximum sentences, stringent recidivist statutes, and coercive plea deals create a “draconian” regime that controls defendants’ decision-making. Third, judicial regulation of the bargaining process is virtually nonexistent, and prosecutors have wide discretion in setting the terms of their proposed plea arrangements. Several solutions may mitigate this phenomenon. The criminal justice system could eliminate plea bargaining altogether, prohibit Alford pleas only, require more judicial supervision of negotiation, encourage trial and appellate courts to consider whether a guilty plea was truly voluntary, or even implement citizen panels of jury members who can review the guilty pleas and ensure there is no substantial doubt as to their accuracy.

“The reality is that there is little defense counsel can do to protect their clients. . . . [P]rosecutors have the clear and undeniable upper hand; they can overcharge, leverage overbroad laws, exploit the information imbalance, wear down the defendant with (often extended) pretrial incarceration, and top it off with the possibility of a draconian sentence, to shape the bargain in such cases.” p. 170