Could a prosecutor agree to allow a defendant to plead guilty to a crime they knew they had not committed, per this &quot;Law and Order: SVU&quot; episode? In the 9th episode of series 15 of &quot;Law and Order: SVU&quot;, a serial rapist offers to plead guilty to a rape which he did not commit, while refusing to plead guilty to a series of rapes which he actually did commit (the reasons for this are complex and irrelevant to the question). The prosecutor and police seriously consider accepting his offer, even though they know he didn't commit the crime he wants to confess to, because they don't think they can prove the crimes he actually did commit. This doesn't sound to me like something which would be legal. Could a prosecutor really agree to a plea bargain deal which would involve the defendant confessing to something which the prosecutor knows they didn't do? I know it's TV, but &quot;Law and Order&quot; has a reputation for being realistic TV.
Such things are in fact legal in some US jurisdictions, as part of plea bargains. In fact such pleas are not uncommon. More usual is the case where a person pleads guilty to a lesser crime, so as to qualify for a lower sentence, when all involved know that the lesser crime was not committed by anyone. It is simply a device to get a compromise sentence and avoid a trial. In some jurisdictions the Judge, in the course of accepting a guilty plea, requires that the accused admit specific facts that form a minimal legal basis for conviction of the crime pled to. In others no such admission is made. But even where such an admission is made, the truth of such an admission is not usually checked. The Judge will generally make sure that the accused understands the effect of a guilty plea, the rights given up by such a plea, and the possible range of sentences that will result. If the Judge believes that the plea constitutes a miscarriage of justice, for example that a totally innocent person is yielding to improper pressure from the prosecutor, the Judge can refuse the plea, but this is very rare in practice.
No. This is not possible. You cannot give consent to homicide, and only the state can provide immunity from prosecution. Consent is not a "justification" or "excuse" under Oregon law, as those terms are defined in its penal code (there is nothing even remotely close in the definition of the relevant terms). Assisting suicide under Oregon law is, however, a situation which can reduce a homicide offense from murder to manslaughter: ORS 163.117 (2015) Causing or aiding suicide as defense to charge of murder It is a defense to a charge of murder that the defendant’s conduct consisted of causing or aiding, without the use of duress or deception, another person to commit suicide. Nothing contained in this section shall constitute a defense to a prosecution for, or preclude a conviction of, manslaughter or any other crime.
You asked, &quot;could that guy as defendant claim self defense and win?&quot; First let's try to make it clear what is meant by &quot;win&quot;. In the Rittenhouse trial, the defendant was charged of the following crimes: First-degree reckless homicide First-degree recklessly endangering safety (x2) First-degree intentional homicide Attempted first-degree intentional homicide Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18 (dismissed) Failure to comply with an emergency order from state or local government (dismissed) Rather than thinking of the defendant as a &quot;winner&quot;, it might be more appropriate to say that he was &quot;acquitted&quot; of these charges. If someone that was involved in the conflict fired first, as you described here: &quot;They encounter each other when each is leaning or reaching or tripping, or whatever it would take for them to unintentionally point their gun at your head. You react and you raise your gun in defense, he spots your move and points his at you. You both fire. You shoot each other and you both are gravely injured. Like, paralyzed&quot;, then would they also be acquitted of all of the non-dismissed charges listed above? If everything was as you described (&quot;unintentional&quot;, &quot;reactionary&quot;, and &quot;in defense&quot;), then likely they would also not be found guilty of those crimes. It's not like they would &quot;win&quot;, it's more like they will not be found guilty of committing one of those crimes. The precise outcome will depend on all the facts involved in the case, and the jury's decision based on those facts. So there is no single answer that always applies to every situation, but it sounds like you're wondering about some hypothetical situation that appears to be paradoxical because in this case only one person was charged with crimes: if someone else was the first shooter, the sequence of following events would first of all depend on whether or not they got charged with a crime, and I wouldn't characterize the outcome as a &quot;win&quot; or &quot;lose&quot; but as an &quot;acquittal&quot; or &quot;conviction&quot;, and yes it is possible to be acquitted if everything is &quot;accidental&quot; as you described, and presumably not &quot;reckless&quot; (often meaning that a reasonable person in the same situation would have done the same thing). About your more broad question: &quot;Is mutual self defense a thing?&quot; It depends on what crime is being charged against the defendant. In the Rittenhouse case there was only one person that was charged. If you're asking about a hypothetical situation in which two people involved in a 1-on-1 conflict both claim self-defense, I hope I can assume that they were both charged with a crime against which to defend themselves in court in the first place. It is indeed possible for a State to prosecute both parties of a 1-on-1 physical conflict, and for both of them to successfully claim self-defense in order to eventually be both acquitted. It wouldn't be called &quot;mutual self-defense&quot;, but each defendant would make their own self-defense case individually.
In most jurisdictions, the lawyer would have two options: Resign from counsel and never talk about the confession. Take the counsel and defend the client as best they can without mentioning that they know the client is guilty. In most jurisdictions, there is something called "attorney client privilege". It means that whatever a client says to their attorney is confidential (there are usually exceptions to this, but usually none which are relevant for this question). The court can not force the attorney to testify against their client. The job of the defense counsel is to achieve the best possible outcome for their client. If the client pleads not guilty, then the attorney's duty is to do their best to convince the court that their client is not guilty, even when they know it to be false. There are a few limits, for example attorneys are usually not allowed to use underhanded strategies like falsify evidence or compel witnesses. But breaking attorney-client privilege by telling the court about a private confession without the consent of the client would be a major case of misconduct and would in many cases cost the attorney their legal license (at least!). And besides: A defense attorney who knows their non-guilty-pleading client is guilty can actually go through the process without ever explicitly claiming that the client is innocent. In order to convict someone for a crime, the prosecuter must prove the clients guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The defendant doesn't necessarily need to prove they are innocent, they just need to create doubt. The defense attorney can fulfill that duty by raising questions like "If my client had committed the crime, then how do you explain [...]", "What reason would my client have had to commit this crime?", "Does this piece of evidence really prove anything?" or "How can we be sure that the witness is telling the truth when she says [...]?". All very good questions which need to be answered by the prosecution, even if the defense already knows the answers. At no point does the defender have to claim "my client is innocent". The defender just needs to claim "You have not yet proven beyond reasonable doubt that my client is guilty".
No, a later trial is not allowed A prosecutor can, and often will charge multiple related crimes, and all will be addressed at the same trial. But once a person has been acquitted on a given set of events, the same jurisdiction cannot re-try the same person on what is often called a lesser included offense. Nor on a greater offense implied by the same events. Not even if additional evidence comes to light. However, if an act (or set of acts) is a crime under both state law and Federal law, for example theft by deception (state crime) and wire fraud (federal crime) one jurisdiction may try the person even after ther has been an acquittal in the other. I think the same rule applies if an act is a crime within the jurisdiction of two different states, that both can trey the accused. In many cases prosecutors will choose not to bring the second trial, but they can if they see fit.
Of course The prosecution just needs to prove that the crime happened (or the defendant believed it to have happened) and you helped (in brief, there will be specific elements of the crime that each need to be proved). This would be easier if the primary crime had a convicted perpetrator but it’s not impossible without. Allow me to illustrate with an example. I will set out facts which are somewhat contrived and would not be so clear cut in a real case but for the purposes of the example please take them as undisputed and fully supported by evidence. John and Jill are in a relationship. This relationship is well known to be argumentative with frequent shouting matches and one or the other storming out. This does not amount to domestic violence by either party. John's friend Alan believes (wrongly) that there is domestic violence. During an argument Jill drops dead of a heart attack. John rings Alan distraught and says "I've killed her." Alan assumes (wrongly) that John has murdered Jill. Alan says "i'll take care of it. You go to your dad's". Alan (alone) disposes of the body. John is not guilty of murder (or indeed, anything). Alan is guilty of accessory to murder even though the actual crime never happened. The fact that Alan believed it happened is enough.
In 1935, the Supreme Court held in Mooney v. Holohan that the prosecution lying about evidence betrays the duty of the prosecutor to seek justice. As such, any evidence that could be in the defense's favor must be revealed to the defense (the defense is entitled to see all evidence against the accused that will be used in trial... and need not turn over evidence that supports the prosecution). Thus, withholding evidence that does not support the prosecution is a lie of omission and thus still lying in court. When this happens, a new trial must be conducted with all new evidence in play. Brady extends this as Brady was convicted on Felony Murder (i.e. Brady was committing another crime and due to this, someone was killed) and given the death penalty. In this case, while Brady admitted that the victim died during the course of the robbery, he maintained he should not be sentenced to death as it was solely the actions of his partner, Donald Bobit, that lead to to the victim's death. The court did not find evidence of this statement and sentenced Brady and Bobit to death. Evidence supporting Brady (a confession by Bobit that he and he alone killed the victim) was withheld from Brady's defense at the time of sentencing and the state held on appeal that this was not a violation of Mooney as Brady was still guilty of the accused crime. The Supreme Court overturned this and ruled that evidence of a mitigating factor could be material to the sentencing still counts as exculpatory evidence and the prosecutor must turn it over. Brady's sentence was vacated, but he was still guilty of the crime he was accused of (committing the original crime of Robbery where someone died during the course of his actions, even though he had no direct hand in that person's death). In effect, Brady was still guilty but not deserving of the Death Sentence, just as he claimed in his appeal.
Such an action by the lawyer is certainly unethical, but there is no automatic or routine mechanism to detect it and give better advice to Rob, at least not in the US. Rob could get a second opinion, but criminal defendants do not often do this, and there is no requirement to do so. If the situation is extreme, it might be reported, after the fact, and the lawyer sanctioned. But no one is ever required to do a plea bargain, and there is always a chance, even if only a very small one, that a jury will acquit. Whether to try for a trial is a judgement call. That makes it hard to deal with the unethical intention, which the lawyer presumably did not tell anyone about. Rob's only practical protection is to pick a lawyer with a good reputation for not doing that sort of thing, and reputations can be misleading. If Rob does not have money he may not be able to choose at all, but then the lawyer will not be tempted to go to trial to &quot;suck money out of&quot; Rob, because there will be none to suck. In that case the lawyer may, indeed, be tempted not to go to trial when (rarely) that would be in Rob's best interest. Rob would have little protection against that.