Talk:Plea bargain

Major Changes

I have started a major re-write of this. Because there are a lot of contributors, I will work on it episodically. For starters, I have re-ordered many of the paragraphs and added subject headings. I have two suggestions for organization, first is the more traditional subject heading by country, and second is to separate the article in to the systemic effects of plea bargains (ie case managment) and the individual effects (such as corecion). Manney 20:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Speedy trial in the US

Cut this sentence:

Plea bargaining also helps courts and prosecutors manage caseloads. In the United States, defendants must be brought to trial within six months of a not guilty plea. If the trial is not held within six months, the case is dismissed. Most jurisdictions, however, do not have enough judges, prosecutors or courtrooms to try every criminal case before a jury within six months. By plea bargaining, prosecutors can reduce the number of cases set for trial so that cases do not get dismissed.

This is certainly not correct throughout the United States. It appears to be a periphrasis of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974 which applies only to cases prosecuted in federal court. Ellsworth 19:55, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Revert back to Plea Bargain

I think this page should go back to "Plea Bargain". I explained my reasons on Neutrality's talk page after his changes, I thought it would be easier to talk about this if I moved the conversation to here:

Hi i am just left wandering why the change from plea barganing to plea agreement through the whole article. Just Curious. Mexaguil 05:34, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I was curious about that as well. The commonly accepted term is "plea bargain" or "plea bargaining". While "plea agreement" describes the same thing, it is not nearly as widely used. The general public is familiar with the former term. Before I change it back I wanted to get your input. Tufflaw 15:06, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

"Plea bargain" suggests a point of view (that the deals made are "bargains" for the defendant). A google search also shows that "plea bargain" only gets a nominally higher number of hits over "plea agreement." And on Google News, "plea agreement" gets 4,940 hits, while "plea bargain" gets only 4,330. This demonstrates that "plea agreement" is the preferred neutral term used in the news media. Warmest regards --Neutrality^talk 15:14, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response - I would note however that if you check Google for both "plea bargain" and "plea bargaining" there are twice as many hits as "plea agreement". Additionally, there is no entry in Black's Law Dictionary for plea agreement, but it's only listed as an alternate term for plea bargain: "plea bargain, n. A negotiated agreement between a prosector and a criminal defendant whereby the defendant pleads guilty to a lesser offense or to one of multiple charges in exchange for some concession by the prosecutor, usu. a more lenient sentence or a dismissal of the other charges. - Also termed plea agreement; negotiated plea; sentence bargain." Also listed in Black's are "charge bargain" and "sentence bargain". Clearly "bargain" is the more commonly accepted term in the legal community. Whether the media uses a term more or less doesn't really have anything to do with the neutrality of the term - the issue is whether the term being used is correct or not (the media still uses the term "alleged suspect" which is ridiculous). This is a legal term of art and can't be considered POV. The preferred term in the legal community is "plea bargain". Tufflaw 15:36, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to try to reach some kind of consensus before switching it back, any thoughts? Tufflaw 04:12, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

According to your evedence, i support Plea Bargaining' as the better term. Mexaguil 11:41, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Changed it back to the legally accurate version. Tufflaw 05:37, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

But, "plea bargain" is not the same as "guilty plea"

As a longtime radio reporter who has attended hundreds of court cases, I can tell you from first-hand experience that "guilty plea" and "plea bargain" are not necessarily synonymous (though they can be). First, "plea bargain" presumes a deal has been made between prosecuting and defense attorneys (subject to the judge's approval) that says the defendant agrees to serve (jail/house arrest/probation/community service/etc.) time in exchange for the guilty plea, thereby foregoing the time and expense of a criminal trial. A "guilty plea" can (and is allowed to) be made with no such agreement, with the defendant (presumably) understanding he could receive the full maximum punishment for the crime as the result of the plea. In addition, a "plea bargain" can be reached allowing the defendant to plead "nolo contendere" (or, "no contest"), which carries the identical legal weight as a guilty plea, but is not the same (as if to say, "I'm not admitting my guilt, but I'm not denying it"). Therefore, unless I'm overruled for some reason, I'm changing guilty plea to redirect instead to plea. RadioKirk 19:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't get it. If a person is erroneously charged with a crime he never committed, he should plead innocent, not bargain.--174.119.145.37 (talk) 22:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment moved from main page

This should be listed under coercion. The state lists the maximum charges and threatens to give the maximum sentence unless you give up your rights and plead guilty to a lesser charge. This leads innocent people to having convictions for crimes they did not commit, and giving lighter sentences to real criminals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.203.146.78 (talk • contribs)

The above entry is biased, uninformed baloney.

misc

your mother!!!!! At the bottom of a plea bargain I witnessed, it said the plea bargain is null and void if any of the following is true:........... one of the items was: if the defendant was on probation, for an offense prior to this one, at the time the current offense took place. .. ..Does this clause mean what it says, or can a prosecutor always have the option to look the "other way"? .. ..Given that the different city jurisdictions are not integrated with their criminal database systems, how would the court in the current trial jurisdiction know about the crime the defendant was on probation for in a different jurisdiction, at the time he committed the current offense?

To answer your question:

Since the agreement is a contract between the defendant and prosecutor, the prosecutor can 'look the other way' if it turns out the defendant was on probation, etc.

However, a Judge may not look the other way, and decide not to accept the agreement if he or she finds out the defendant was on probation. In serious cases, Judges routinely get a report on the defendant which details their past criminal history. These usually, but not always, list the defendant's past history on probation.

P.S. to poster above: was 'your mother' the defendant? You sure are an angry kid. But to answer your foolish question: if the defendant lies about his criminal record, then he doesn't get the benefit of his bargain. It's that simple. Perhaps you think it is unfair that a criminal tell the truth, but the rest of don't. If your mother didn't want the plea agreement she didn't have to take it, and if your mother was on probation, she should have admitted it.

Poverty and plea bargains

Plea bargaining is generally explained as helping to reduce the expense/caseload for the judicial system, or to average the probability of conviction. As wealthy defendants are clearly more capable of prolonging a trial, and generally have a better chance of acquittal, do existing guidelines explicitly recommend more lenient plea bargain offers to wealthier defendants? Mike Serfas 14:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Sources

I would like a source for the claim that a federal law, enacted this January prevents reductions in sentences of more than 50%. wikipedia is literally the ONLY source I can find for this claim and I have done extensive research, encluding the congressional library. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Demotheses (talk • contribs) 21:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

UK case?

See this BBC News article: "Rahman admitted the offences as part of a plea bargain agreed after the judge, his Honour Clement Goldstone QC, indicated that the defendant would only be jailed for a maximum of six years if he was to plead guilty and avoid a trial." Note the specific jail time - that seems to me as a layperson to go against what is said about England and Wales in the Wikipedia article. Could someone with better knowledge please explain? 86.132.138.84 (talk) 16:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Could be a mistake (by the judge), or a mistaken understanding by the BBC. Difficult to say without some detail. A guilty plea would ordinarily reduce sentence, though by how much will depend on when it is made. Sorry I can't enlighten more. Francis Davey (talk) 07:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Not worldwide view

The intro is mainly about US, without even stating so. The next paragraph, "Controversy" is also mainly about US. Matt77 (talk) 05:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the tag, since the article addresses several countries from both the common law and civil law traditions, and the text of the article makes it pretty clear that the practice of plea bargaining is mostly found in the US. PaulGS (talk) 04:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Somebody put the tag back, but I've removed it again for the same reason given just above. Anybody can add additional material about other countries and rework the lead if needed. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The second paragraph talks about "felonies" and "misdemeanours" which are jurisdiction specific terms; refers to "state prison" (a US term if ever there was one) and assumes that theft offences are divided into two classes of seriousness as a matter of charge (again not true where I am sitting). The third paragraph is simply false for my jurisdiction (no such thing as a "no contest" plea) and the fourth paragraph assumes sufficient contact between prosecutors and defence counsel that was not my experience when I practised in crime (albeit briefly), there aren't sufficient repeat interactions to make it a plausible problem. The body is, as you say, mostly well divided up, but the lead has a strongly US feel. Francis Davey (talk) 07:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Why not improve the article with your additional insights? That's the best course of action. I'm going to ask you directly, too. Bstephens393 (talk) 23:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Canada

Discussion and reference to case law about joint submission guidelines and the need for judge deference to a joint submission here. 66.18.232.148 (talk) 19:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I have removed that tag (along with some other changes). That link is helpful; I'll refer to it. Bstephens393 (talk) 22:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Writing Style

I noticed that in the "Controversial plea deal" section of the article, there is a rhetorical question that opens one of the paragraphs. I am not too sure whether or not this is acceptable for wikipedia's purposes. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmcl404 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn’t want the article to violate Wikipedia style guidelines, and would defer to more experienced editors on that question. The problem I have with the revised article, as it now stands, is that it only partly explains the public outrage.TheTruth-2009 (talk) 16:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Controversial plea deal

This section was deleted with the reason “Remove irrelevant discussion of random case”, but I have restored it giving “This was a high-profile case, and the plea deal was highly controversial” as justification. Admittedly, this is the only individual case mentioned in the article. But some individual cases are mentioned in the associated article “Plea bargaining in the United States”, so this section could have been moved there instead, as a less drastic measure.

Perhaps more important, neither article has anything to say about plea negotiations being revealed, as was done in this case. That, in and of itself, makes the Westerfield case notable and worthy of individual mention.TheTruth-2009 (talk) 07:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Large block of content added, needs formatting, some revision for tone

A Judge’s proper role in the plea bargaining process in a criminal or traffic case is critical to the fair and impartial administration of justice.

In a civil case parties are free to enter into a settlement agreement without intervention from the Judge. The Judge’s involvement before trial is to make sure that the case is fairly and efficiently processed, including resolving discovery disputes. Civil Rule 41(A) (1) permits civil litigants to settle and dismiss a case without input or intervention from the court.

The counterpart in the criminal rules is Criminal Rule 48. Criminal Rule 48 governs dismissal of criminal charges. Criminal Rule 48(A) permits the state to dismiss a charge only by leave of court. There is no provision in the Criminal Rules permitting dismissal by the prosecution without court approval. Since the prosecutor cannot dismiss a case without court approval, the Judge must necessarily inquire into any proposed dismissal, amendment or reduction of a charge in order to provide a proper check and balance. The role of the Judge in the plea bargaining process has been recognized by many courts. The 9th District Court of Appeals has described this important function. In State v Denes 2008-Ohio-3506 the court noted and held: “Whether to accept a proposed plea agreement is within the sound discretion of a trial court. In re Disqualification of Economus, 74 Ohio St. 3d 1230, 1231 (1991). It remains true, that this Court “recognize[s] the need and thereby approve[s] of the prosecution entering into meaningful and good faith plea negotiations with defense counsel.” Akron v. Ragsdale, 61 Ohio App. 2d 107, 109 (1978). As this Court noted in Ragsdale, “[w]hen a recommended plea bargain is rejected, the court ought to state reasons for [its] rejection.”

Other courts are in accord.

Reviewing, and rejecting plea bargains, while not always popular, is a necessary check and balance on the executive branch of the government as well as a safeguard for an accused. The Judge’s role in the plea bargaining process can be categorized depending on the involvement the Judge has in the process.

Judge has absolutely no involvement in the plea bargain process

Some courts have no involvement at all in the plea bargaining process. This approach can be referred to as the “Rubber Stamp” approach. Similar to the civil case where the parties negotiate a settlement free from input or intervention from the court, the prosecutor and defense counsel are free to enter into any agreement they desire. The Judge takes the approach that the Judge will only interfere with the negotiations if there is a discovery dispute or disagreement, the same as a civil case.

This approach is subject to potential abuse or the appearance of impropriety. Depending on the philosophy of the prosecutor, if the court does not review the plea bargain, accountability to the public or the rights of the accused could be jeopardized. Some prosecutors in the Municipal Courts are part-time. Many are not elected officials and are at least one or two steps removed from direct accountability to the public. A prosecutor’s primary motivation may not be the same as the judge. The primary motivation of the Judge is to make sure the rights of the accused are protected and arrive at a just result. Part-time prosecutors typically have a private practice. Some may be under pressure from their partners or private clients to limit the amount of time spent prosecuting cases so that they can spend more time on their private pay practice. Some may have aspirations of holding elected or other public office, or may even already hold elected or public office or be associated or employed by political interests, and may want to stay in good stead with the defense bar. Some may be under pressure by law enforcement or other outside influences to offer a reduction or not pursue a case for reasons unrelated to the fair and consistent pursuit of justice.

The facts in Denes bring to light the need for a Judge to review and accept or reject a plea bargain. In Denes the Defendant was charged with a 2nd offense OVI. The prosecutor wanted to reduce the OVI for reasons not related to the strength of the prosecutor’s case. The Judge rejected the plea bargain. The case was tried to a jury. The jury convicted the Defendant of the OVI.

The appellate court, in finding that the trial court complied with the requirement of setting forth the reasons for rejecting the plea bargain, noted and held:

“The trial court did so in this case. It explained that it wanted a further explanation of the perceived deficiencies in the State’s case before it would accept the proposed agreement. In view of the possible perception that the State was willing to reduce the charges either because Mr. Denes knew the Police Chief or in order to avoid the Police Chief having to testify, the trial court’s desire for a further explanation was understandable. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting the proposed plea agreement, and Mr. Denes’s second assignment of error is overruled.”

This is an example of a case where the Judge provided a check and balance on the prosecutor’s attempt to reduce charges without a proper explanation thereby protecting the integrity of the case and the interests of the public while not infringing on the Defendant’s rights including his right to a jury trial.

Although no reported case can be found, monitoring plea bargains can also safeguard the rights of the accused. An example of the type of case where this might commonly occur in the Municipal Court is in the area of driving under suspension. In October 2009 the laws applicable to charges of driving under suspension were significantly modified. Prior to the change in the law, driving under suspension charges were 1st degree misdemeanors. For a period of time some prosecutors and defense counsel were not aware of the change. A “Rubber Stamp” Judge could unwittingly approve a plea bargain that includes jail for a non-jail offense thus unjustly depriving a citizen of his/her liberty in violation of the law. A competent well informed Judge, monitoring the plea bargain process, would be able to stop an injustice of improperly imposing a jail or suspended jail sentence. Because of the resources available to a Judge, through attendance at the Ohio Judicial College and other educational offerings, a Judge is able, and required, to be knowledgeable with current law changes. The monitoring of the plea bargain in these situations can protect defense counsel from a potential malpractice claim, the prosecutor from potential embarrassment and save the taxpayers from providing jail space for an offense that the legislature has deemed a non-jail offense.

Another example of an abuse of the process of plea bargaining is an agreement to permit a fine to be paid in excess of the maximum amount for an offense in exchange for a plea bargain. This type of a plea bargain has been found to be highly improper. In State v. Rue (1986) 29 Ohio Misc.2d 27 the court held that the prosecutor and defendant cannot agree to violate the law. The court held: “…consent of the parties is not sufficient to confer upon the court the authority to impose a fine in excess of the statutory provision. Turning to the public policy side of this issue, the court finds that an arrangement such as that proposed in this case is in direct conflict with the concept of equal justice cherished in this country. A plea bargain agreement that, by its nature, would be available only to those able to pay a large fine is contrary to public policy.”

Not only would such a plea bargain be against public policy but would violate the Code of Judicial Conduct mandating that the Judge follow the law. The “Rubber Stamp” approach turns a blind eye to an agreement in violation of the law.

Judge has full involvement in the plea bargain process

The antithesis of the “Rubber Stamp” approach is the situation where a Judge is present at all times and monitors the discussion and exchange of information and dialogue between the prosecutor and defense Counsel. A judge is not permitted to suggest a plea bargain or impose the Judge’s will based upon the Judge’s evaluation of the facts during pretrial negotiations. It is the province and duty of the prosecutor to investigate the facts of the case and to determine if prosecution should go forward with the charge or charges as filed. Full involvement by a Judge may result in the Judge stepping over the line and assuming the role of the prosecutor or compromising the Judge’s independence if the Judge eventually must act as the trier of fact. When the prosecutor and defense counsel present facts to the Judge prior to the trial there is temptation by the parties to rely on the Judge’s opinion of facts not in evidence to make a decision. Statements by the prosecutor and defense counsel in the plea bargaining process are almost always based on hearsay, either in a police report or what someone told them.

The attitude of a prosecutor not to commit to a position on a case until the Judge has a chance to review the parties’ respective positions places the Judge in an uncomfortable and inappropriate situation. Judge’s do not prosecutor people. To ask a Judge how the Judge would rule based upon hearsay and opinion of counsel presented to the Judge in chambers denigrates the role of the Judge and compromises the Judge’s independence. Judges make decisions based upon facts in accordance with established rules of evidence. Asking a Judge to decide a case based on hearsay and opinion of counsel is not only unfair to the Judge but unfair to the participants in the case.

Pretrial proceedings, just as trials should be held in open court, in order to avoid the appearance that the Judge is deciding whether to prosecute a claim. The decision whether to prosecute is the not the Judge’s decision. Disclosure in open court of reasons for reductions and dismissals also furthers compliance with the 1st Amendment requirement of public trials , complies with Criminal Rule 48 and assures the participants and the public that the case is being fairly and justly concluded. If the Judge makes a decision based on hearsay and opinion of counsel in chambers, the Judge has no control over what the prosecutor and defense counsel relate to others that occurred in the Judge’s chambers. While we would hope that every prosecutor and defense attorney would honorably and candidly share the facts that were presented to the Judge to others, we would be naïve to think that there are not situations where the discussions in chambers are not fully disclosed to the participants or the public. The Judge does not know what is told to the accused, police officers, witnesses, the press and others as to why a case is being reduced or dismissed. Defense counsel or a prosecutor may emerge from chambers and convey, either expressly or impliedly, that the Judge has decided the case in chambers. The participants and others would not know that the prosecutor or defense counsel may have provided only selective information to the Judge in order to gain a desired plea bargain. All accountability is then unfairly thrust upon the Judge. The Judge is then placed in a position where the Judge cannot defend herself/himself. There should never be a headline that reads: “Judge dismisses charges”, unless of course the case is called for trial. Judges do not dismiss charges without a trial. Prosecutors dismiss charges prior to trial. The Judge’s role in the plea bargaining process is to accept or reject a plea bargain to reduce or dismiss a charge. A headline that reads “Judge dismisses charges”, where the prosecutor has dismissed or reduced the charges, is not correct and does not further confidence and trust in the judiciary. This risk is avoided by limiting in chambers plea bargains that are not disclosed on the record.

Judge reviews the plea bargain process with information from the prosecutor and defense counsel-not in chambers

Under this approach the Judge neither rubber stamps a plea bargain or decides the case on hearsay provided to the Judge by the attorneys. Under this approach, the prosecutor investigates the facts and enters into a contingent plea bargain with the defense subject to the Judge’s approval. The prosecutor is required to give reasons for a plea bargain, preferably in writing or in open court. This approach is the best approach to the Judge’s obligation to accept or reject a plea bargain. It allows the Judge to assume the Judge’s proper role in protecting the plea bargaining process. In the Oberlin Municipal Court a “Plea Bargain Worksheet” is utilized. The worksheet is completed and presented to the Judge. If a charge is being dismissed or reduced, the reasons are set forth. This allows the Judge an opportunity to determine if the Judge will accept or reject the plea bargain without hearing an entire summary of the case from the attorneys. It also facilitates processing the case. The attorneys do not have to see the Judge in person. The negotiations take place outside of the Judge’s presence. If the plea bargain is approved, the worksheet can be used to type the plea agreement. In chambers discussions can still be had regarding procedural issues but substantive issues are reserved for open court dialogue or placed into the record in a journal entry or read into the record in open court. This method preserves the transparency necessary to foster trust and confidence in the process by the litigants, witnesses and the general public.

Are there any situations when a Judge should not accept a plea bargain? How often have we heard “You are the Judge, you can do whatever you want.” This is a dangerous statement. It is not true. Judges are bound by their oath of office and must comply with the law. The Code of Judicial Conduct provides guidance and direction for Judges with regard to acceptance or rejection of plea bargains. Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct 1.1 provides that “A Judge shall comply with the Law.” If a plea bargain is proposed that is not in compliance with the law then it must be rejected. For example, there are mandatory penalties for certain crimes. R.C. 4511.19 provides mandatory jail sentences for repeat offenders. If the mandatory penalties are not imposed, the Judge is not complying with the law.

As an elected official, Judges may be faced with pressure by litigants, the press or attorneys. Certain groups have expectations of the Judge. The Judge may be of a certain political party or may have accepted support from groups or individuals during the election process. Some of these persons may have certain expectations of the Judge. The Judge may be confronted with these persons, either directly or indirectly. Code of Judicial Conduct 2.4 prohibits a Judge from allowing external influences into a decision. That includes acceptance or rejection of a plea bargain. Comment [1] to 2.4 is instructive on the issue:

“An independent judiciary requires that judges decide cases according to the law and facts, without regard to whether particular laws or litigants are popular or unpopular with the public, the media, government officials, or the judge’s friends or family. Confidence in the judiciary is eroded if judicial decision making is perceived to be subject to inappropriate outside influences.”

If a plea bargain is proposed to appease one of these interests or creates the appearance that it is being approved to appease one of these interests the Judge should not accept that plea bargain. Protecting the plea bargaining process and safeguarding the process from unjust criticism requires transparency in the plea bargaining process. Society thirsts for confidence and trust in the justice system. Back room discussions and back room plea deals invite distrust and skepticism by the public. Requiring the prosecutor to provide sound reasons for plea agreements, in writing, fosters public confidence in the judicial process and protects both the interests of the community and the rights of the accused.

References

Controversial plea deal

The text “However, defense attorneys defended Feldman, and two ethics experts said there is absolutely no evidence Westerfield's attorneys committed any violations of the California Rules of Professional Conduct” has been changed to “As expected, defense attorneys defended Feldman ...”.

As expected by whom? More fundamentally, this doesn’t seem to me to be NPOV. The revised text seems to be saying that of course other defense lawyers would defend Feldman, they would automatically do so regardless of the facts, and I don’t believe that’s the case, or at least some evidence should be produced to support that. I therefore think this change should be reverted.TheTruth-2009 (talk) 15:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I have deleted the whole section. It was based entirely on unconfirmed media stories which were based on anonymous sources. The implications were that Westerfield was guilty, that his attorneys knew it, and that they were lying their heads off when they argued to the jury that he was innocent. However, Westerfield is a living person (although convicted, he has never admitted guilt) and so are his attorneys. This kind of negative material about living people is not allowed at Wikipedia without more solid evidence than a couple of anonymously-sourced news reports. --MelanieN (talk) 17:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I see that the section was deleted once before, as "irrelevant information about a random case". I agree with that rationale for deletion also; this is an article about a legal principle, and there were and are no other extended examples given. Based on that earlier deletion and my current deletion, I would say that "delete the section" has consensus here, and it should not be restored without consensus to do so. --MelanieN (talk) 17:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The section was deleted with the explanation “the reported plea bargain deal was never confirmed and was sourced only to anonymous sources”. This is repeated on the Talk page, but it is not correct. The original sources were anonymous, but the then DA Pfingst later confirmed it, as is clearly stated in the now-deleted section.

Yes, it was deleted once before, but when it was restored, reasons were given, and those reasons haven’t been disputed, either then or now.

I can understand negative material not being allowed in Wikipedia, but this is a case in which the negative material is not only “out there”, but has also become a prominent and influential part of the case - it’s even in the Wikipedia article on the case - and the deleted section includes evidence that it is not true - it provides a balance.

Articles about legal principles should discuss dangers, consequences and violations. This article does so, and the deleted section fits logically into it.TheTruth-2009 (talk) 05:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I guess you are referring to this reference, in which Brenda van Dam says that Pfingst confirmed it. I wish we had something sourced to Pfingst himself - wasn't it reported when he did it? - but Brenda says it and the paper seems to accept it. That should certainly be added to the Murder of Danielle van Dam article, where this plea bargain is quite properly discussed. At this article, I still think it is inappropriate. There is not a SINGLE other actual case discussed here, it is all general and theoretical. Specific cases do not seem to be part of this article and there's no reason why this one should be. In other words I agree with what the earlier deleter called it, "irrelevant information about a random case". --MelanieN (talk) 15:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Italy

Will someone who understands the Italian system, AND can adequately document it, please rewrite the section on Italy. At the moment it's barely comprehensible! Tapered (talk) 03:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Link to Spanish Wikipedia is wrong

The link to the Spanish Wikipedia article "Colaboración_premiada" is wrong because that article is about people being investigated in Brazil cooperating with police in exchange for leniency. It is not about plea bargain as discussed in this English article. 62.117.205.219 (talk) 14:47, 12 April 2022 (UTC)