plea bargaining v.s. plea bargaining for testimony?

Question

Does anyone have any contextual evidence that plea barganing and plea bargaining for testimony are different and how? thanks

Answer 1

A plea bargain for testimony is not different in its effect than any other plea bargain: it's a deal in which a suspect pleads guilty to an offense, and gets some consideration, most often in the form of a sentencing recommendation.

Sometimes as part of the plea bargain the offense to which the suspect pleads guilty is lesser in severity than that with which he or she was originally charged. That often happens in cases in which the prosecutor is seeking to obtain testimony, however, it also leads to the possibility of the testimony being impeached by cross examination, in which the witness is required to admit that he or she has made a deal and received a reduced sentence in order to testify.

The inference the defense seeks to have the jury draw is that the deal was made to get the witness to testify in a specific way, and that it would not have been made if the witness had told the truth. That strategy has uneven results.

Answer 2

Plea bargaining covers anything that can be ageed upon by the parties such as lowering of the claim, offense charged and presentation of evidence.

Plea bargaining for testimony deals only with how many witnesses will be presented in court for trial.

Answer 3

nicely, right that's the deal.. that's a good supply if he's accountable. opportunities are high the prosecutor has greater actual evidence to colaberate the education. specific the testimony of one can effectively positioned him in penal complex. If he's accountable he needs to be honest and take what he has coming to him. Confessions to others is somewhat undemanding in this area for prosecution. human beings dont in many circumstances tell human beings the did something only for the heck of it....