As I explained in this prior thread, when judges impose bail amounts on the poor that they cannot pay, it creates incredible pressure on poor defendants to plead guilty regardless of their guilt.
/1
One of the solutions to this injustice was the establishment charitable bail organizations. In short, these organizations pay the bail for an indigent defendants so that he can remain free prior to trial (they are presumed innocent, after all) while he builds his defense.
/2
And because the defendant is not in jail before trial, the coercive pressure on the defendant to plead guilty is lessened, forcing the prosecutors to prove their cases at trial instead.
Not surprisingly, prosecutor and police don’t like these charitable bail organizations.
/3
Recently, a state legislator in Kentucky proposed a state law that would make these charitable bail organizations illegal in his state.
Who is this legislator, you might wonder? He’s a Baptist. And a former Kentucky State Trooper.
/end leoweekly.com/2022/01/kentuc…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
🧵 Someone recently said to me they would have guessed that I was previously a public defender, rather than a prosecutor. I had some other commenters this week suggest that I just don’t want to see crime punished.
So I thought it might help to elaborate on my background.
/1
I spent nearly a decade as a federal prosecutor, fighting crime in my community at a small fraction of the pay I could have made in private practice.
People sit in prison, including on federal death row, this very minute because of my prior work as a prosecutor.
/2
You can lecture me about not caring about crime victims after you’ve prosecuted a capital murder case.
You can tell me I’m soft on crime after you’ve put child pornographers, bank robbers, drug dealers, tax cheats, embezzlers, fraudsters, & ponzi-schemers in prison.
/3
Everyone should be outraged by modern-day plea bargaining: 🧵
In a plea bargain, the defendant “agrees” to pleading guilty in return for a sentence that, typically, is dramatically lower than what he would get under the law if he was convicted after trial.
/1
If the much longer sentences handed out after trial are just, then you should be outraged that in 90+% of cases, the defendant gets off with a much lighter (and thus unjust) sentence.
/2
If the much longer sentences handed out after trial are unjust, then you should be outraged that the threat of an unjustly long sentence after trial is used as a threat that coerces people (some of them innocent) into waiving their constitutional right to a trial.
/3
“Today, @shonhopwood is a law professor. But he used to be a bank robber.”
“Used to be.” Because we don’t have to be defined forever by our worst acts.
“I introduce myself the same way whenever I'm asked to speak-paid speaking events, Rotary clubs, churches, before the president and senators. I say, My name is Shon Hopwood… I committed a violent crime, but I am not a violent criminal,'" Shon recounted.
It's an effective introduction, Shon explained, because it introduces people to the idea that someone could commit a violent crime because he is at a certain stage in his life….
You’re arrested in a case of mistaken identity for shoplifting a small quantity of goods at a local store.
After your arrest, you make a brief court appearance where your bail is set at $2,500.
/1
Because you’re in the bottom 40% of income earners in the US (who, on average have a savings of $2,100), you can’t make bail. So off to jail for you to await trial.
After sitting in jail for a week in unspeakable conditions, the prosecutor offers you a deal:
/2
You can plead guilty (to a crime you didn’t commit) and be out of jail tomorrow. Or, you can await trial (3 months from now) and hope to prove your innocence. In the meantime, you will almost certainly lose your job and get evicted from your apartment.
It was reported today that the judge presiding over the trial of 3 white men accused of murdering Ahmaud Arbery "found that there appears to be intentional discrimination" by the defense attorneys in their exclusion of black jurors.
The result was that the jury that will hear this case is composed of 11 whites and 1 black member.
How did this happen?
During jury selection, both the prosecution and the defense attorneys can use what are known as peremptory challenges, meaning they can strike prospective ...
... jurors for any reason or no reason at all. But they can't strike jurors based on their race. In Batson v. Kentucky (1985), the US SCt ruled that striking jurors on the basis of race is unconstitutional. If one party challenges the other party's strikes as racially...