Plea Bargains
Wilco is an important documentary, not just for me and my family but all that live in the USA. The doc brings to light the critical issue of plea bargaining and its impact on people's lives. The film highlights the injustices that can occur when the criminal justice system prioritizes convictions above all else and the impact it has on the convicted’s family. Plea bargaining can be a useful tool for resolving cases quickly, but it can also lead to wrongful convictions and perpetuate systemic injustices.
Plea bargaining is a ubiquitous practice in the American criminal justice system, where the prosecutor and defendant negotiate a plea agreement to resolve a criminal case without going to trial. While it can benefit both parties by reducing caseloads, securing convictions, and avoiding the cost and uncertainty of a trial, it's not without its flaws.
Injustice: Plea bargaining can cause defendants pleading guilty to crimes they did not commit in order to avoid the risk of a harsher sentence, like we just saw. This can lead to innocent people being convicted and punished for crimes they did not commit just to return to the life they know sooner.
Coercion: Some defendants may feel pressured or coerced into accepting a plea deal. And many are not fully informed of their rights or the consequences of a plea, which leads to defendants pleading guilty to crimes they did not commit, or to harsher sentences than they would have received if they had gone to trial.
Isolation and a lack of transparency: Plea bargaining often takes place behind closed doors, which can make it difficult for the public to understand the process or to hold the criminal justice system accountable.
Inequalities: Plea bargaining exacerbates existing inequalities in the criminal justice system, particularly for defendants who are low income, less educated, or people of color. These groups may be more likely to accept plea deals than others.
Lack of accountability: Plea bargaining can shield prosecutors and other government officials from accountability for misconduct, as defendants may be more likely to accept plea deals in order to avoid the risk of a harsher sentence if they were to go to trial. Effectively covering their tracks after everything is all said and done, unless investigated at a later date.
Plea bargaining can lead to wrongful convictions. Prosecutors may use the leverage of harsher charges or sentences to pressure innocent defendants to accept a plea deal, leading them to plead guilty or no contest to a lesser charge.
And some prosecutors (this was my fathers prosecutor) may withhold or suppress evidence that could prove a defendant's innocence to secure a plea deal. The pressure to secure convictions can also lead to prosecutorial misconduct, such as withholding exculpatory evidence or making false statements to the court, which can result in unjust outcomes.
Several high-profile cases have shed light on the flaws of plea bargaining and the need for criminal justice reform. These cases highlight the potential for plea bargaining to lead to unjust outcomes and wrongful convictions, emphasizing the need for reform (or maybe some reconstruction).
Ryan Ferguson: In 2005, Ryan Ferguson was accused and wrongfully convicted of murder after accepting a plea bargain. He spent nearly a decade in prison before his conviction was overturned in 2013.
Marty Tankleff: In 1988, Marty Tankleff was wrongfully convicted of murdering his parents after accepting a plea bargain. He spent nearly two decades in prison before his conviction was overturned in 2007.
The case of Brian Banks: In 2002, Banks was a high school football star with a scholarship to USC. However, he was falsely accused of rape and his attorney advised him to take a plea deal to avoid a possible life sentence. He served five years in prison before his accuser recanted her story and he was exonerated.
Michael Morton: In 1987, Michael Morton was wrongfully convicted of murdering his wife after accepting a plea bargain in Texas. He spent nearly 25 years in prison before DNA evidence proved his innocence and his conviction was overturned in 2011.
The Central Park Five: In 1989, five teenagers were wrongfully convicted of rape after accepting plea bargains. They spent years in prison before DNA evidence proved their innocence and their convictions were vacated in 2002.
Maurice Caldwell: In 1991, Caldwell was wrongfully convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison without parole in California. The case against him relied on the testimony of a single eyewitness who later recanted her testimony, stating that police had coerced her. After serving 20 years in prison, Caldwell was exonerated in 2011.
Thomas Haynesworth: In 1984, Haynesworth was wrongfully convicted of rape and sentenced to 74 years in prison in Virginia. Despite DNA evidence proving his innocence, it took 27 years and multiple appeals before he was released from prison in 2011. Haynesworth's case is often cited as an example of the flaws of plea bargaining and the need for criminal justice reform.
Jarrett Adams: In 1998, Adams was wrongfully convicted of rape and sentenced to 28 years in prison in Wisconsin. After serving almost 10 years in prison, Adams taught himself law and successfully appealed his conviction based on the ineffective assistance of his trial counsel. Adams went on to earn a law degree and became an advocate for criminal justice reform.
David Bryant: Bryant was convicted of a rape he did not commit in 1975 and was offered a plea deal that would have given him a shorter sentence than a conviction at trial. He refused to take the deal because he was innocent, and spent 38 years in prison before being exonerated in 2013.
The case of Jeffrey Deskovic: Deskovic was coerced into taking a plea deal in 1990 for the rape and murder of a classmate. He spent 16 years in prison before DNA evidence proved his innocence and he was exonerated in 2006.
The case of Richard Phillips: Phillips was wrongfully convicted of a 1971 murder and spent 46 years in prison before being exonerated in 2018. He was offered a plea deal multiple times but refused to take it because he maintained his innocence.
Rodney Roberts: In 1996, Roberts was arrested for a string of armed robberies in Washington, D.C. Despite a lack of physical evidence, Roberts was coerced into pleading guilty to two of the robberies, which led to a 10-year sentence. In 2004, DNA testing proved Roberts' innocence and he was exonerated.
Johnnie Lindsey: In 1982, Johnnie Lindsey was sentenced to life in prison for the murder of a Dallas police officer. The case against him relied on the testimony of a single eyewitness who later recanted, and forensic evidence that was later discredited. Lindsey claims he was coerced into pleading guilty in exchange for a promise that he would not receive the death penalty.
Christopher Scott: In 1997, Christopher Scott was sentenced to life in prison for a murder he did not commit. The case against him was based on the testimony of a single eyewitness who later recanted, and a confession from a co-defendant who later admitted to lying about Scott's involvement in the crime. Scott claims he was pressured into pleading guilty in exchange for a lighter sentence.
Anthony Graves: In 1992, Anthony Graves was sentenced to death for the murder of a family of six in Somerville, Texas. The case against him relied on the testimony of a co-defendant who later recanted, and a confession that Graves claims was coerced. After spending 18 years in prison, Graves was exonerated by DNA evidence that pointed to another man as the real killer.
Ricardo Rachell: In 2002, Ricardo Rachell was sentenced to 40 years in prison for a murder he did not commit. The case against him relied on the testimony of a single eyewitness who later recanted, and a confession that Rachell claims was coerced. Rachell says he was pressured into pleading guilty in exchange for a lighter sentence. He was exonerated in 2019 by DNA evidence that pointed to another man as the real killer.
The work of Wilco and its team will bring this issue to the forefront of public discourse and aims to inspire action to address the flaws in our justice system. By shedding light on the experiences of those who have been wrongfully convicted, the film encourages viewers to recognize the importance of fair and just legal proceedings. It also serves as a call to action for individuals and organizations to take part in advocating for change and reform in the criminal justice system.
The wrongfully convicted and their families had to fight for thier innocence and now we fight for change. Please join us in the fight as we work towards a more equitable and just system for all.