Also known as: guilty plea negotiation · guilty plea negotiations · guilty plea acceptance · acceptance of guilty plea · plea bargain · plea bargaining · plea agreement · guilty plea
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A procedural stage in criminal proceedings during which the prosecution and defense discuss potential resolutions through a guilty plea and the court evaluates whether to accept such a plea. The court must address the defendant personally to confirm that the plea is voluntary and not the product of force, threats, or improper promises. Acceptance binds the court once it approves a plea agreement specifying a sentence or sentencing range.
Gerald Gibson entered a guilty plea to securities fraud charges at arraignment. After the court suppressed key prosecution evidence, he withdrew the plea and later entered a nolo contendere plea. In a subsequent civil action by investors, the court refused to admit the withdrawn guilty plea against Gibson.
Gregory Gates met with prosecutors before any formal plea offer and asked what deal might be available while acknowledging certain misrepresentations. The statements were later offered against him in a related civil proceeding. The court excluded the statements because the discussions did not result in a guilty plea.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Gloria Green pleaded guilty to a felony punishable by more than one year in prison. In a subsequent civil action, the plaintiff offered the final judgment to prove an essential fact from the conviction. The court admitted the judgment under the hearsay exception for qualifying convictions entered after a guilty plea.
Gabriel Gonzalez pleaded guilty pursuant to an agreement that left certain sentencing enhancements for judicial determination. The court applied a statutory enhancement that increased the maximum sentence beyond the range contemplated at the plea. The enhancement violated the requirement that facts increasing the statutory maximum be admitted by the defendant or found by a jury.
Grace Gupta entered a guilty plea to an offense carrying a ten-year maximum. The court imposed a sentence above that maximum based on a judicial finding of a hate-crime motivation. The sentence was reversed because any fact that increases the penalty beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
Guadalupe Gallegos negotiated a plea agreement that recommended a specific sentencing range under the guidelines. The court accepted the agreement after reviewing the presentence report and imposed a sentence within the agreed range. The defendant could not later withdraw the plea when the court followed the recommendation.
The court must address the defendant personally in open court and determine that the plea is voluntary and did not result from force, threats, or promises other than those in a plea agreement.
A guilty plea satisfies the knowing and intelligent requirement if the record shows the defendant was adequately informed of the nature and elements of the charge by counsel.
Fear of a harsher penalty after trial is a typical and permissible factor in deciding to plead guilty when the plea is otherwise voluntary and intelligent.
Counsel must provide effective assistance during plea discussions. A defendant shows prejudice by establishing a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, the defendant would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on trial.
…after a 90-day investigation in which he was prohibited from using such routine investigative techniques as grand juries, plea bargaining, grants of immunity, or even subpoenas, see § 592(a)(2). The Court also makes much of the fact that "the courts are specifically prevented from reviewing the Attorney General's decision not…