Abstract
Courts and prosecution pay a great heed to ascertain the authenticity, validity and congruity of pleas while convicts are prone to deviate from their confessions as soon as they foresee any danger attached to the statements they have tendered. Once pleaded guilty, court has the discretion to pronounce sentence based on the contents of the charge proved and acknowledged by the accused, who try to evade the punishment by backing off from their confessionary statements later on.
Keywords: Add keywords here. To replace this (or any) tip text with your own, just select it and then start typing. Don’t include space to the right or left of the characters in your selection.
Brady V US, 397 U.S. 742 (1970)
Mr. Justice Black’s viewpoint in Herman v. Claudy (1956)[1] that a guilty plea made by “involuntary confessions or unintelligent waiver of constitutional right to counsel” was again decided upon by the jury in the United States v. Brady (1970). Criminals find loopholes in the legal framework and prosecution system to avail the benefits of the slightest doubt, but it is the court that is endowed with the responsibility to bridge these gaps, if any, and bring perpetrators of crimes to their logical end. Brady V. The US is a classic example of how criminals tend to manipulate their statements to escape stricter penalisations. Although a rigorous penalty may appear threatening or coercive to a defendant, courts do not rely on it as a substantial factor to invalidate his plea of guilty that is made openly, knowingly and intelligently (Brady v. The United States, 1970).
Brady, convicted of abduction and failure in handing over the abductee without harm, carefully fabricated his stance and kept on changing it with the course of events. He alleged that the statute, under which he was being tried, coerced him to submit a declaration to which he pleaded himself as guilty of the offense. Supreme Court of U.S. rejected his view and affirmed that he cannot plead his innocence on the grounds that he was forced to confess the crime in duress the when it is established that he made his statement before a magistrate who assured himself of, and recorded too, the awareness and understanding of the incrimination to the culprit.
Petitioner Brady, indicted in 1959 under U.S.C. 1201(a) which contained death penalty for a kidnapper if recommended by the jury, revised his prior statement in which he opted not to plead guilty. As soon as the petitioner learned that his accomplice has confessed to the crime, he chose to plead guilty because his accomplice’s confessional statement might have proved him guilty of the offense and that could be presented as evidence on him. On his pleading guilty, and subsequent trial, the Trial Court awarded him a sentence of 50 years behind bars which later, was lessened to thirty years. While he was making his second statement, in which he decided to plead himself guilty had the services of his counsel at his disposal, the trial judge inquired him twice about the volunteering of his confessionary statement. To repeated queries from the magistrate, he ensured the court about the voluntary submission of his statement and acknowledged in the courtroom that he was acting completely in his discretion without any outward pressure. After ascertaining his guilt, the court penalized him with the imprisonment verdict.
Later in 1967, he filed for post-conviction relief under the pretext that the penalty and the subject matter of section 1201(a) coerced him to tender his confession. To this plea, the court denied relief and maintained that his plea was utterly voluntary and also that the said section of the statute has nothing to do with inducing him to that end. Court also upheld the view that his confessionary statement was made after he had learned the confession of his confederate and only that development urged him to revise and resubmit his deposition; a view that was affirmed me Court of appeal also. In petitioner’s opinion, Jackson V. United States and its findings call for the reversal of that stance.
Grounds of the petitioner.
Petitioner contemplated and filed for relief under 28 U.S.C 2255 maintaining that he did not submit his plea voluntarily as he was coerced due by the considerations of an impending death penalty in case a jury recommends to that tune. In his denial of the voluntary nature of his plea, Brady sought to imply that the said statute, with its exceedingly punitive nature, was comminatory enough to force him to append his affirmation of the guilt. It is not a distant conception that culprits resort to pleading guilty and avail the benefit of their capital punishment being converted into a lesser harsh life-imprisonment. Secondly, Brady tried to vindicate his stance by the averment that his counsel exerted undue pressure and extraordinary pressure on him to reverse his stance of not pleading guilty. His repeated view that “impermissible pressure” by his counsel constrained him very meaningfully to deviate from his previously upheld position, might have been of peremptory nature and couldn’t be relied upon as a robust and substantiated ground for his plea for relief.
He opted to include the preoccupation of his learned counsel who represented him towards securing clemency and reduced tenure of imprisonment. The plea for post-conviction relief included in it an avowal of the point that his guilty plea was induced and tendered by representation (Guilty Pleas–Brady v. The United States, 61 J. Crim. L. Criminology & Police Sci. 521 (1970), 1971).
Additionally, it was also alleged that the trial judge who recorded the confessionary statement of Brady remained deficient in fuller compliance with rule 11 of Federal Criminal Procedure Rules which directed a court to ascertain itself about the voluntary nature of any plea to be admitted by it before pronouncing its verdict.
Views of Mexico District Court
After perusing the case, Mexico District Court Judge could not find substantial evidence to prove that the petitioner’s counsel exerted impermissible pressure on his client to persuade him for pleading guilty in his second statement. Court also noted that no such representation was made on his behalf as to a lesser sentence or clemency. Upholding the constitutionality of section 1201(a) court registered the fact that petitioner pleaded guilty only after knowing the detrimental confession of his accomplice who might be brought up, in the near future, to testify against the petitioner for his part of the guilt. So, there were “other reasons” which forced the petitioner to modify his previous claim of pleading not guilty to accepting the guilt, it was not the statute itself. The district court judge also excluded any perchance of an error or incognizance on the part of the Trial judge for whom it was established that he questioned the petitioner twice to make sure the plea was fully and finally voluntary, concluding that the plea was made “knowingly and voluntarily.” (Brady v. The United States, 1970)
The Tenth Circuit Court upheld the findings noted by District Court and referred especially towards the part on the determination of the voluntariness of the plea by the evidence in lower court. The court of appeal upheld the grounds stated in District Court verdict and affirmed the decision after a thorough purview.
United States V. Jackson and the contentions in Brady V. US.
The petitioner was granted certiorari in 1969 to determine the standing of the claim that the court might have erred in accrediting the authority of Supreme Court’s decision in United States V. Jackson, 1968. In that case, the indictment of offenders under section 1201(a) was relegated in the context that the statute approved the imposition of capital punishment only after a recommendation by a Jury. The apex court observed that such an imposition tends to make death penalty as one of the costs of a jury trial and on this ground, the statute was rendered unconstitutional. Petitioner, Brady in the present case, argued through his counsel that because of United States V Jackson, all of the indictments and pleadings under section 1201(a) had been invalid afterward. To this contention, the court maintained the validity of the statute except for the proviso concerning death penalty to which it ascribed to the view that this proviso amounts to be an “impermissible burden” on a culprit who should have to be free in the exercise of his constitutional right without any pressure. (390 U.S. 572)
At that point, the question was to determine the fact that if the death penalty can be sustained only to those defendants who asseverate their right to rebut their guilt in a trial by jury. Under consideration was the position that the statute proviso disinclined an individual to assert his right not to plead guilty as affirmed under the Fifth Amendment, and also it discouraged the right to demand a trial by jury as protected under the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution. The proviso under 1201(a) “needlessly penalized” the assertion of a constitutional right” in the sense that veritable intent of punishing criminals under the directions of a jury could be ensured without intimidating those who opt for a trial. Since the court in United States V Jackson termed ineluctable effect of capital punishment as a needless goading for tendering pleas of guilty and consequently avoid trial by jury, Brady asserted that in purview of Jackson case rendered every such plea as invalid, especially in circumstances where fear of death had been made apparent as a factor in the plea.
To this, the court evinced that United States V Jackson did not deem the statute 1201(a) essentially coercive of guilty pleas. Furthermore, the court cited Laboy v. New Jersey, 266 F.Supp.581(D.C.N.J.1967) in which a guilty plea was admitted as voluntary despite the fact that defendant was visibly perturbed under the anticipation of capital punishment. The court found an assertion made in United States v. Jackson to the effect that “jury waivers and guilty pleas may occasionally be rejected” lacking in generalization on the premise that any such rule would leave the entire criminal procedure inflexible (United States Vs Jackson, 1968).
Grounds for a Guilty Plea to be valid
By discrediting death penalty under 1201(a) the Jackson case did not espouse a new norm or precedent to for the evaluation of guilty pleas and the decision did not impinge upon the well-established fact that please are to be taken as valid if they meet two basic criteria i.e. those are “made voluntarily” and are “intelligent.” (Boykin v. Albama, 1969) Moreover, it had also been established through continued practice that a confessionary plea, being a solemn and severe incrimination, was to be admitted and relied upon with a great degree of care and vigilant acumen because in such a case the defendant testifies against himself in an open court setting. Additionally, such pleas are an implicit acquiescence on the part of the defendant that conviction can be levied without cumbersome wetting in a trial—that amounts to the discretionary waiver of one of his constitutional rights. Courts do exert diligent appraisal while accrediting such pleas and ensure that the confessions enumerated in the plea are made after “knowing” the nature and context of the statement and are made intelligently with a thorough awareness of the conjoining circumstances and its consequences (Larry J. Siegel, 2013).
A Plea under the possibility of impending punishment.
The voluntary nature of Brady’s guilty plea was ascertained in 1959 by the trial judge once at its first instance, and then again on the day of pronouncement of the sentence. District Court found it to be a voluntary confession after the judges had concluded evidentiary hearings in 1968, and the court of appeal, also, didn’t budge from previous findings. The apex court noted clearly that the bench could not find any contradiction to the previous fora’s findings on reasonable grounds. Hence, it did not modify the verdict and relied upon the breadth of all of the relevant circumstances surrounding the case.
The overreaching of these circumstances was the expectancy of a heavier punishment in case a jury decided in the trial, because in Brady’s jurisdiction kidnapping and not releasing the hostage without harm was an offense in which a jury could impose a death penalty on the offender. The court observed the possibility of Brady choosing to plead guilty when he found equal to none chances of his acquittal after he learned that his accomplice had confessed the crime and was ready to testify against him. In doing so, he might have been intrigued by the possibility of a reduction in sentence under the “flexibility” criminal process contains offers to those who cooperate with the procedure (James W. H. McCord, 2012).
States machinery and prosecution encourages making guilty pleas at different stages of a trial in a criminal proceeding. Extracting a confession from a criminal varies along person to person as some give over to the punishment simply under the conscientious remorse of violating the codes while others may need a bulk of evidence, in some cases post-conviction, to make a guilty plea. Governmental pressurizing and threatening acts like apprehension and charging are also keys to bring out confessions which are rarely contested as being of coercive nature. In Brady’s case neither such duress was witnessed or alleged at any stage nor he was proved to be overawed by fear of impending death or even the hope of lenity that forced him to obfuscate advantages of leading through trial over perks of pleading guilty keeping in view the discretion of a judge in standardizing punishment for a specific convict. Furthermore, before altering his first plea, he was not subjected to any coercion or promises in his direct encounters with the state authorities. His guilty plea was turned in in an open court before a competent judicial officer who knew and had implemented the legal exigencies of guilty pleas.
The Element of Intelligence in Brady’s guilty pleading
The court noted that Brady was made to understand the nature of charges against him, he had the prudent advice of his au fait counsel at his disposal, and nothing in the entire course of proceedings indicated that he was deficient in his mental faculties. More often than not, the choice of a defendant to plead guilty is veneered by his estimation of the prosecution’s case. Keeping in view both of points, the court observed that Brady’s counsel might have made him aware of the repercussions prosecution case and its possible outcome under existing law; and maintained that in case the penalty of a crime that is lessened at a subsequent point of time had no bearing upon rendering guilty plea, made under counsel’s advice, invalid.
Conclusion
Affirming the view that existing procedures relating to the accreditation of guilty pleas were “not foolproof,” the court reiterated that if the defendant had condemned himself falsely under the promises of leniency, the court would have more serious doubts regarding the case. But during the entire course of proceedings, both petitioner and the court could not identify any evidentiary proof substantial enough to lead the court towards impeaching Brady’s plea of guilty. It was, and became more and more, evident that the statement Brady made in open court was an authentic and credible piece of self-incriminating evidence; and the court was unanimous in its belief that the plea was tendered voluntarily and intelligently. It was established, beyond doubt, in the United States v. Brady that the solemn and grave admission made by the defendant, no matter if made under the consideration of relief, was truthful and could not be withdrawn as it served as the basis of the sentence.
References
Boykin v. Alabama , 642 (U.S. Supreme Court June 2, 1969). Retrieved April 13, 2017, from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/395/238/case.html
Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (U.S. Supreme Court May 4, 1970). Retrieved April 13, 2017, from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/397/742/case.html
Guilty Pleas–Brady v. United States, 61 J. Crim. L. Criminology & Police Sci. 521 (1970). (1971). Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 61(4), 521-525. Retrieved April 13, 2017, from http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5686&context=jclc
HERMAN v. CLAUDY, 45 (United States Supreme Court January 09, 1956). Retrieved April 13, 2017, from http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/350/116.html
James W. H. McCord, S. L. (2012). Criminal Law and Procedure. Clifton Park, NY: Delmar Learning.
Larry J. Siegel, J. L. (2013). Essentials of Criminal justice (Eighth ed.). Belmont CA: Wadesworth .
United States Vs Jackson, (85) 390 U.S. 570 (U.S. Supreme Court April 08, 1968). Retrieved April 13, 2017, from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/390/570/case.html
- (HERMAN v. CLAUDY, 1956) ↑
