I witnessed a court hearing, where a defendant tried to plead not guilty and get a public defender.?

Question

The Judge was very intrested in how much money she had, but showed no intrest in the facts of the case. All of his question where about money. He offered her a deal in exchange for a guilty plea. If she did not plead guilty she would have to wait around a week for her 603$ SSI check, her only source of income, to get her out of jail and get her moms truck out of inpound. She plead guilty and confessed to the crime of frequenting, not even knowing what freqenting ment. Is this legal? What happens when the judge finds out the information about 3 joints in her confesion, is false? Her pasanger infact had 1 joint and 2 roll your own cigarets.

Answer 1

Either the crime was one for which there was no jail time or the judge determined there would be no jail time. In that case, a defendant is not entitled to a public defender. If a bail had to be set, and she did not have it, there would be no lawyer for a bail reduction hearing, and she would have to stay in jail until she got the money for bail. If she wanted to go home, she could plead guilty and pay a small fine and get time to pay it, and be on her way home right away.

A lawyer would have told her to plead guilty.

Answer 2

What happens depends on a lot of factors.

At the arraignment and bail hearing, a determination is made of whether the defendant can afford an attorney, based on income. The amount of bail is also based on income.

More importantly, the rights to an attorney only arise if the crime is serious enough. While state laws vary, generally if the sentence does not carry any prison time (actual or suspended), then there is no right to free appointed counsel. Of course, if you can afford an attorney, you can still have one.

So, the facts of the case don't matter, because no determination is being made on those facts. The only relevant facts are the income, for reasons above, and whether the offense as charged could result in jail time. If the person cannot afford an attorney, and the judge promises no jail time, then no free attorney need be provided. So, if the judge offers her a deal that doesn't include jail time, it saves a lot of time and expense.

Generally however, before a guilty plea is allowed, the defendant must be made aware of the nature of the changes, and the possible sentence. Just because you didn't know what the charge meant doesn't mean it hadn't been explained to the defendant before she got to court.

So, while what the judge did may be within his discretion, it's not normally the procedure. Usually, it's the prosecutor who actually offers the deal, even if it's suggested by the judge.

Answer 3

It sounds like the defendant in this case was pressured into pleading guilty. However, no one forced the person to do so, but there was significant duress. There is a process by which the judge's actions could be complained upon to the ranking judge of the court in that district.

The one sad fact here is those who can afford attorneys get better treatment. A poor person has less of a chance in the court system; and forget representing youreself!

Answer 4

Heck, 1 joint? My first question to her would be "Why didn't you swallow it, you nut?"; 2nd is, if she was a 1st time offender, it's probably something like a 50-100$ fine, so he probably just wanted to scare the crap out of her so she wouldn't do it again...3rd, if you're not guilty, then she should've plead not guilty and she most likely would've been released on a PTA (promise to appear) for another court date...heck, the judge did everyone a favor....saved some tax dollars by getting it over and done with...