What is plea bargain arrangement? Bryan Garner’s Black’s Law Dictionary, 8th Edition at page 1190 defines plea bargain as: “A negotiated agreement between a prosecutor and a criminal defendant whereby the defendant pleads guilty to a lesser offence or to one of multiple charges in exchange of some concession by the prosecutor, usually a more lenient sentence or a dismissal of the other charges.”
— Ogunwumiju JCA. Patrick Eboiegbodin v. FRN (CA/B/329CF/2011, 9 April 2014)
SHARE ON
The concept of plea bargain itself, originated from the American jurisprudence and became established in the case of Brady v. United States 397 U.S 742 (90 S.Ct.1463, 25 L.Ed. 2d 747). Below are the brief facts of the case: In 1959, the accused/petitioner was charged with kidnapping and faced a maximum penalty of death. He was represented by competent counsel and at fast, elected to plead guilty. Upon hearing that his co-accused had confessed to the authorities, would plead guilty and be available to testify against him, he changed his plea to guilty. His plea was accepted after he was twice questioned as to the voluntariness of the plea and he was subsequently sentenced to 50 years imprisonment. In 1967, he sought for relief under 28 U.S.C 2255 claiming that his plea of guilty was not voluntary. He claimed that his counsel mounted impermissible pressure on him to plead guilty. The district court for the District of New Mexico denied him the relief. The Court of Appeal affirmed the decision of the District Court. The Supreme Court of the United States in affirming the decision of the Court of Appeal had this to say: “The issue we deal with is inherent in the criminal law and its administration because, guilty pleas are not constitutionally forbidden because the criminal law characteristically extends to the Judge or jury a range of choice in setting the sentence in individual cases, and because both the State and the defendant often find it advantageous to preclude the possibility of the maximum penalty authorized by law. For a defendant who sees slight possibility of acquittal, the advantages of pleading guilty and limiting the probable penalty are obvious. His exposure is reduced, the correctional processes can begin immediately, and the practical burdens of a trial are eliminated. For the State, there are also advantages- the more promptly imposed punishment after an admission of guilt may more effectively attain the objectives of punishment; and with the avoidance of trial, scarce judicial and prosecutorial resources are conserved for those cases in which there is substantial issue of the defendant’s guilt or in which there is a substantial doubt that the State can sustain its burden of proof.” The Supreme Court of the United States stated further that: “Of course, that the prevalence of guilty pleas is explainable does not necessarily invalidate those pleas or the system which produces them. But we cannot hold that it is unconstitutional for the State to extend a benefit to a defendant who in turn, extends a substantial benefit to the state and who demonstrates by his plea that he is ready and willing to admit his crime and enter a correctional system in a frame of mind that affords hope for success in rehabilitation over a shorter period of time than might otherwise be necessary.” Subsequently and with this seal of approval by the US Supreme Court, the courts treated a plea bargain as contracts between the prosecutors and defendants. If the defendant breaks a plea bargain, the prosecutor is no longer bound by his or her side of the deal. If a prosecutor reneges on a plea bargain, the defendants may seek relief from the court.
— Ogunwumiju JCA. Patrick Eboiegbodin v. FRN (CA/B/329CF/2011, 9 April 2014)
It must be stated that notwithstanding that the trial Court is not a party to a plea bargain agreement, the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 nonetheless empowers and endowed a trial Court with limited jurisdiction and powers to examine critically the plea bargain agreement pursuant to Section 270(10) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 in order to ascertain whether the Defendant admits the allegation contained in the charge to which he has pleaded guilty and whether the Defendants entered into the agreement voluntarily and without undue influence. The Presiding Judge or Magistrate in addition to his power to convict the defendant also has authority to award compensation to the victim as per the terms of the plea bargain agreement. All these are to ensure that there is no collusion between the prosecutor and defendant to defeat the purpose and intendment of section 270 of Administration of Criminal Justice Act. It is also to ensure that the parties do not enter into unconscionable bargain that will be in injurious or inimical to the interest of the victim of the offence and must ensure there is provision in the agreement for restitution. It is also designed to forestall any bargain that is illegal or against public policy.
— Ige JCA. Agbi V. FRN (CA/A/873C/2019, 25 March 2020)
Suffice it to say at this point that the concept of plea bargain agreement itself originated from the American jurisprudence and became established in the case of Robert M. Brady v. United States 397 U.S. 742 (90 S. Ct. 1563, 25 L. Ed 2d 747). It dated as far back as 1959 wherein the accused was charged with kidnapping and faced maximum penalty of death. He pleaded guilty to the charge and was sentenced to 50 years imprisonment. In 1967, he sought for relief under 28 U.S.C 2255 claiming that his plea of guilty was not voluntary but that his counsel mounted impermissible pressure on him to plead guilty. The District Court for the District of New Mexico denied him the relief. The Court of Appeal affirmed the decision of the District Court. The Supreme Court of the United States also affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeal. Since the seal of approval by the US Supreme Court therefore the Courts have treated plea bargain as contracts between the prosecutors and defendants.
— C.B. Ogunbiyi JSC. Romrig Nigeria Limited V. FRN (SC.254/2014, 15 Dec 2017)
The incentive for a plea bargain as can be gathered from calm reading and interpretation of section 270 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 enables the prosecutor and the defendant to enter into a plea bargain agreement that is mutually beneficial to the interest of the Prosecutor and the defendant in a criminal trial to which the Administration of Criminal Justice Act is applicable. The bottom line is that the defendant must be ready and willing to plead guilty to the offence or offences for which he is charged and arraigned. The agreement must evince legal intention to accommodate the defendant to obtain lesser punishment in terms of sentence to imprisonment or a fine against the defendant. Some of the essential ingredients of plea bargain are that defendant must acknowledge commission of the crime charged, plead guilty to it and must be convicted by the presiding judge whether at magisterial level or a High Court.
— Ige JCA. Agbi V. FRN (CA/A/873C/2019, 25 March 2020)
There can be either sentence bargain or charge bargain. A sentence bargain is where the prosecution agrees to a lesser punishment for the accused, if he can plead guilty to the charge. A charge bargain involves the agreement to drop some charge(s) against the accused if he pleads guilty.
— Ogunwumiju JCA. Patrick Eboiegbodin v. FRN (CA/B/329CF/2011, 9 April 2014)
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry