btmj said:
If some people get a better plea deal than others for the same charge, can the people who get the not-so-good plea deal argue that they did not recieve equal protection under the law?
Maybe, but it would be tough, and I don't see it being very successful. Part of that is due to the sheer number of factors that the prosecutor could have considered in offering the deal. Another factor to consider is the possibility of a Plaintiff's case dying on the various immunities in play.
The first question is on is "on what basis" such a claim would be brought. Race, gender & age are all protected classes, so a Plaintiff might argue, "I'm a black woman, and: (1) non-black people have been treated better; and (2) men have been treated better." Those are (at least on their face) viable claims. We'd have to look at the (potential) Plaintiff to determine whether or not he is "similarly situated in all relevant aspects," which is necessary to mount a successful Equal Protection claim.
The second question is: Who's the defendant? The police officers? They made the arrest, but not the plea deal. The prosecutor? See above, and also consider prosecutorial immunity. The Court? Best of luck, and consider judicial immunity. The City? Only if you can make out a policy, practice, or custom claim, and that's easier said than done.
44 AMP said:
btmj said:
can the people who get the not-so-good plea deal argue that they did not recieve equal protection under the law?
Am not a lawyer, so this is a guess, but a plea deal takes place before charges are brought. SO, I would think "not receiving equal protection" would not apply. I think you are not "under the law" in this case, until charges are filed.
OR maybe after arraignment?
But I really don't know for certain. Legal folks, am I totally off base here?
You're not "totally" off base, but somewhat off base. A plea deal happens after charges are brought. Typically, they happen after charges are brought, but before trial happens. However, I'm unaware of anything that prohibits a prosecutor and defendant from reaching a plea bargain during or even after trial. (Sort of "Look, John Prosecutor, you didn't make the case on Agg Assault, because you forgot to talk about a weapon. My guy is willing to take Simple Assault if you'll recommend no more than 90 days jail and up to 2 years probation, though.") Presumably, if it gets as far as sentencing, everyone's willing to roll the dice, though.
I think EP does apply, but this case falls into a very sticky area, and one very difficult for a Plaintiff's lawyer to overcome. EP could be made out in disparate enforcement cases against individual officers or even cities (e.g. officers are only enforcing weapons laws against a particular protected class of citizens). Individual officers would be protected by qualified immunity, though. Once the charge goes from charging officers to the prosecutor and the judge, then the Plaintiff has to deal with prosecutorial immunity and judicial immunity. Those are absolute immunities, rather than "qualified" immunities, and much harder to overcome.
Going back to this question, though:
Doesn't this case begin judicial history that has upheld the claim "I forgot" as a valid defense?
The relevance of the fact that this one pled out is as follows: In building a "judicial history" under our common law system, we have statutes and case law to guide us. Statutes are enacted by legislatures. Case law is the series of decisions by appellate courts that tells us what a statute means. Yes, yes, I've heard "just read the statute" before. But when a statute says, ".... when an officer reasonably believes....," we turn to the case law to see what the appellate courts think about the phrase "reasonably believes," and under what circumstances various officers' beliefs have been held to be "reasonable" or "unreasonable" within the meaning of the statute.
The fact that this was a plea deal means that it didn't go up on appeal, so it won't form any valid case law to guide the lawyers in the future.
