Instruct: Given a question, retrieve passages that can help answer the question.
Query: Are sentences reduced for plea bargain cases?
The plea bargain (also plea agreement or plea deal) is any agreement in a criminal case between the prosecutor and defendant whereby the defendant agrees to plead guilty or nolo contendere to a particular charge in return for some concession from the prosecutor. This may mean that the defendant will plead guilty to a less serious charge, or to one of the several charges, in return for the dismissal of other charges; or it may mean that the defendant will plead guilty to the original criminal charge in return for a more lenient sentence.
In 2009, in a case about whether witness testimony originating from a plea deal in the United States was admissible in a Danish criminal trial "(297/2008 H)", the Supreme Court of Denmark (Danish: Højesteret) unanimously ruled that plea bargains are "prima facie" not legal under Danish law, but that the witnesses in the particular case would be allowed to testify regardless (with the caveat that the lower court consider the possibility that the testimony was untrue or at least influenced by the benefits of the plea bargain). The Supreme Court did however point out that Danish law contains mechanisms similar to plea bargains, such as of the Danish Penal Code (Danish: Straffeloven) which states that a sentence may be reduced if the perpetrator of a crime provides information that helps solve a crime perpetrated by others, or of the Danish Competition Law (Danish: Konkurrenceloven) which states that someone can apply to avoid being fined or prosecuted for participating in a cartel if they provide information about the cartel that the authorities did not know at the time.
The constitutionality of plea bargaining was established by "Brady v. United States" in 1970, although the Supreme Court warned that plea incentives which were sufficiently large or coercive as to over-rule defendants' abilities to act freely, or used in a manner giving rise to a significant number of innocent people pleading guilty, might be prohibited or lead to concerns over constitutionality. "Santobello v. New York" added that when plea bargains are broken, legal remedies exist.
Plea bargain as a formal legal provision was introduced in Pakistan by the National Accountability Ordinance 1999, an anti-corruption law. A special feature of this plea bargain is that the accused applies for it, accepting guilt, and offers to return the proceeds of corruption as determined by investigators/prosecutors. After an endorsement by the Chairman National Accountability Bureau, the request is presented before the court, which decides whether it should be accepted or not. If the request for plea bargain is accepted by the court, the accused stands convicted but neither is sentenced if in trial nor undergoes any sentence previously pronounced by a lower court if in appeal. The accused is disqualified to take part in elections, hold any public office, or obtain a loan from any bank; the accused is also dismissed from service if a government official.
On June 2, 1986, the defense requested for the case to move back to Puerto Rico, where the political motives would be understood and argued that the Sixth Amendment of the US Constitution offered a right to be tried in the district of offense and cited SCOTUS precedents of defendants being tried in their own community. Michael Deutsch brought in sociolinguist William Labov who exposed that due to low quality recording, only native Spanish speakers had been able to understand words in what recorded in the tapes during tests, and that even then there was no agreement about what was being said. Labov argued that this diminished the possibility of a transcript being objective without the jury understanding the words and estimating the voice tones in the tapes. This was used to argue in favor of moving the case back to Puerto Rico and against employing an entirely American jury. Claire declined to move the case, citing that it revolved around a heist in Hartford and that the arguments would not involve Puerto Rican politics. Despite this, the prosecution had emphasized alleged EPB moves in Cuba and Nicaragua, both countries with strong ties to Communism. The defense then moved to argue the suppression of government evidence due to procedural errors in its collection that included being sealed months after dictated by procedure. Concern grew over the prolonged time of reclusion that the accused were spending in jail on preventive detention. On October 21, 1986, the US Court of Appeals for the Second District argued that such a period of pre-trial detention was unconstitutional. By December, Claire had begun to set bonds for the accused that were held for 15 months under preventive detention.
The Preamble has been used to confirm that the Constitution was made for, and is binding only in, the United States of America. For example, in "Casement v. Squier", a serviceman in China during World War II was convicted of murder in the United States Court for China. After being sent to prison in the State of Washington, he filed a writ of "habeas corpus" with the local federal court, claiming he had been unconstitutionally put on trial without a jury. The court held that, since his trial was conducted by an American court and was, by American standards, basically fair, he was not entitled to the specific constitutional right of trial by jury while overseas.
People v. LaValle, 3 N.Y.3d 88 (2004), was a landmark decision by the New York Court of Appeals, the highest court in the U.S. state of New York, in which the court ruled that the state's death penalty statute was unconstitutional because of the statute's direction on how the jury was to be instructed in case of deadlock. New York has since been without the death penalty, as the law has not been amended.
In 2006, Merisant, the maker of Equal, filed suit against McNeil Nutritionals in U.S. District Court, Philadelphia, alleging that Splenda's tagline; "made from sugar, so it tastes like sugar" is misleading. McNeil argued during the trial that it had never deceived consumers or set out to deceive them, since the product is in fact made from sugar. Merisant asked that McNeil be ordered to surrender profits and modify its advertising. The case ended with an agreement reached outside of court, with undisclosed settlement conditions. The lawsuit was the latest move in a long-simmering dispute. In 2004, Merisant filed a complaint with the Better Business Bureau regarding McNeil's advertising. McNeil alleged that Merisant's complaint was in retaliation for a ruling in federal court in Puerto Rico, which forced Merisant to stop packaging Equal in packages resembling Splenda's. McNeil filed suit in Puerto Rico seeking a ruling which would declare its advertising to not be misleading. Following Merisant's lawsuit in Philadelphia, McNeil agreed to a jury trial and to the dismissal of its lawsuit in Puerto Rico. However, on May 11, 2007, the parties reached a settlement on the case, the terms of which were not disclosed. Currently, Splenda is advertised with the slogan, "It starts with sugar. It tastes like sugar. but it's not sugar."
The Preamble serves solely as an introduction, and does not assign powers to the federal government, nor does it provide specific limitations on government action. Due to the Preamble's limited nature, no court has ever used it as a decisive factor in case adjudication, except as regards frivolous litigation.
The prosecution theorized that McMonigle abducted Chamberlain with the intention of raping her, murdered her when she tried to resist, and later carried her body to the Devil's Slide and tossed it into the ocean. He was pronounced guilty by the jury after only 38 minutes of deliberation, and sentenced to die in the gas chamber. While in death row, he confessed to the murder of a San Francisco woman and later to have murdered eleven people overall, but he was not charged with more murders. In his last statement before his execution in 1948, however, McMonigle claimed that he was not involved in Chamberlain's disappearance.
During the 15th century, the common law courts were challenged by the civil law and equity found in the Chancery and similar courts. These courts and legal methods were much faster than the common law courts, so lawyers and claimants flocked to them. This was perceived as a threat to the common law courts, for good reason; between 1460 and 1540, the business of the common law courts significantly dropped, while the Chancery's cases rose massively in number. In reaction to this, the Court of King's Bench developed its own, faster system, intent on winning cases back, and through procedures such as the Writ of Quominus and Bill of Middlesex acquired a wider jurisdiction. While this succeeded in forming an equilibrium between the old common law courts and the new courts, it was viewed with suspicion by the Common Pleas, who became highly reactionary to the changes the King's Bench attempted to introduce. When the King's Bench attempted to use the Bill of Middlesex to widen its jurisdiction, the Common Pleas became increasingly conservative in its attempts to avoid ceding cases. This was limited by the fact that the three Common Pleas prothonotaries could not agree on how to cut costs, leaving the court both expensive and of limited malleability while the King's Bench became faster, cheaper and more varied in its jurisdiction.
Following Wiens's defence statement, El-Sherbini testified to the court. After El-Sherbini had finished her testimony, the judge asked whether there were any further questions. Wiens replied and asked why above all El-Sherbini was in Germany. The question was rejected by the judge; Wiens responded with a further question to which the defence counsel motioned for recess. El-Sherbini was not intending to wait until the end of the hearing and tried to leave. When she, her husband, and their three-year-old son were at the door, Wiens suddenly attacked El-Sherbini with a kitchen knife with an long blade, which he apparently had taken into the courtroom in a backpack. El-Sherbini received more than 15 stab wounds to the upper body and arm; the attack was carried out in such a forceful and sudden manner that it resulted in a notable absence of defence wounds. While trying to protect his wife, El-Sherbini's husband Okaz was stabbed at least 16 times to the head, neck, upper body and arm. Wiens's defence counsel tried to help El-Sherbini by obstructing Wiens with chairs and a table. The victim's three-year-old son was injured while being ushered to safety.
In English, "yes", "no", "okay" and "amen" are common pro-sentences. In response to the question "Does Mars have two moons?", the sentence "Yes" can be understood to abbreviate "Mars has two moons."
The jurors of the trial voted the guilt of Socrates by a narrow margin (36a). In the "Apology of Socrates", Plato cites no numbers of votes condemning or acquitting the philosopher of the accusations of moral corruption and impiety; although Socrates did say he would have been acquitted if thirty more jurors had voted in his favour. In such cases — where the penalty of death might arise as legal sanction for the accusations presented — Athenian law required that the prosecutor and the defendant each propose an administrative penalty to punish the actions reported in the accusations.
When a jackpot does not result in a "kakuhen" combination, the pachinko machine will enter into "" (時短, short for 時間短縮 meaning time-reduction) mode, with a much larger number of spins than "kakuhen". Under the original payout odds, the center gate widens to make it considerably easier for balls to fall into it; this system is also present in "kakuhen". To compensate for the increase in the number of spins, the digital slot machine produces the final outcomes of each spin faster. ST pachinko machines do not offer this mode; after it ends, the machine spins as in "kakuhen". Once no more jackpots have been made, the pachinko machine reverts to its original setting.
The Preamble to the Georgia State Constitution is a brief introductory statement describing the principles which the Constitution is meant to serve. It expresses in general terms the intentions of its authors. It does not grant nor prohibit any authority to the state government. However, it has at times been used by the Supreme Court of Georgia to help in deciding a case. For instance, the Preamble was cited in 1982 in Roberts v. Ravenwood Church of Wicca, and later the portion of the Preamble which states ""...promote the interest and happiness of the citizen and of the family..."" was used in several court cases regarding family issues such as Clabough v. Rachwal, Dixon v. Dixon and Arnold v. Arnold.
During the later decades of the fourteenth century English started to come back into official use. The Pleading in English Act 1362 sought to replace French with English for all pleas in courts. The Mercers' Petition to Parliament of 1386 is the oldest piece of parliamentary English; the earliest English wills at the London Court of Probate date from 1387; the earliest English returns of the ordinances, usages, holdings of the gilds are from 1389 and come from London, Norwich and King's Lynn. John Trevisa, writing in 1385, noted that: "...in all the grammar schools of England children are dropping French and construing and learning in English...Also gentlemen have now largely stopped teaching their children French".
Oral contracts, when made correctly before witnesses, can be enforced. For example, in 1984, after Getty Oil was sold to Pennzoil in a handshake deal, which is legally binding under New York law, Texaco made a higher offer, and the company was sold to Texaco. (Even though the case was tried in Texas, New York law applied.) Pennzoil filed a lawsuit alleging tortious interference with the oral contract, which the court upheld and awarded $11.1 billion in damages, later reduced to $9.1 billion (but increased again by interest and penalties).
While still at the firm, Payton was tapped to be the lead counsel for the University of Michigan in defending its law and undergraduate schools' use of race in their admissions processes. For more than six years, Payton handled the two high-profile cases in the trial court and in the court of appeals, and argued "Gratz v. Bollinger" before the Supreme Court. He organized a broad coalition from higher education, the military and top businesses in support of diversity initiatives. In a narrow decision in "Grutter v. Bollinger", the Supreme Court upheld the use of race in college admissions.
In his essay, "Briefly, the case for the novella", Canadian author George Fetherling (who wrote the novella "Tales of Two Cities") said that to reduce the novella to nothing more than a short novel is like "insisting that a pony is a baby horse".
In July 2008, The Weinstein Company announced the development of a new sequel, "Scream 4", written by Williamson with Craven being secured for the project in March 2010. In May 2010, Cathy Konrad, producer of the original three "Scream" films filed a $3 million lawsuit against The Weinstein Company alleging they violated an agreement with her company, Cat Entertainment, that gave them first rights to produce all "Scream" films. The Weinstein Company argued that the agreement requires Konrad's services to be exclusive to the franchise, an argument that Konrad called "false pretext" as the previous films did not require this stipulation. Konrad accused the Weinsteins of attempting to force her to walk away without compensation in order to hire a cheaper producer (Craven's wife Iya Labunka) and cut costs. In April 2011, it was reported that the case had been settled out of court by The Weinstein Company.
Plea bargaining is extremely difficult in jurisdictions based on the civil law. This is because unlike common law systems, civil law systems have no concept of plea—if the defendant confesses; a confession is entered into evidence, but the prosecution is not absolved of the duty to present a full case. A court may decide that a defendant is innocent even though they presented a full confession. Also, unlike common law systems, prosecutors in civil law countries may have limited or no power to drop or reduce charges after a case has been filed, and in some countries their power to drop or reduce charges "before" a case has been filed is limited, making plea bargaining impossible. Since the 1980s, many civil law nations have adapted their systems to allow for plea bargaining.
Plea bargaining in Magistrates' Court trials is permitted only to the extent that the prosecutors and the defence can agree that the defendant will plead guilty to some charges and the prosecutor will drop the remainder. However, although this is not conducting a plea bargain, in cases before the Crown Court, the defence can request an indication from the judge of the likely maximum sentence that would be imposed should the defendant decide to plead guilty.
Largely unique to the Canadian justice system is that further negotiations concerning the final disposition of a criminal case may also arise even after a sentence has been passed. This is because in Canada the Crown has (by common law standards) a very broad right to appeal acquittals, and also a right to appeal for harsher sentences except in cases where the sentence imposed was maximum allowed. Therefore, in Canada, after sentencing the defence sometimes has an incentive to try and persuade the Crown to not appeal a case, in exchange for the defence also declining to appeal. While, strictly speaking, this is not plea bargaining, it is done for largely the same reasons.
Some cases can be disposed of without the need for a trial. In fact, the vast majority are. If the accused confesses his or her guilt, a shorter process may be employed and a judgment may be rendered more quickly. Some nations, such as America, allow plea bargaining in which the accused pleads guilty, nolo contendere or not guilty, and may accept a diversion program or reduced punishment, where the prosecution's case is weak or in exchange for the cooperation of the accused against other people. This reduced sentence is sometimes a reward for sparing the state the expense of a formal trial. Many nations do not permit the use of plea bargaining, believing that it coerces innocent people to plead guilty in an attempt to avoid a harsh punishment.