October 24, 2006
More Talmudic Logic
Remember the yeshiva bochur who called in a bomb threat to delay his plane from taking off without him? Well, he was indicted last week on one count of making a hoax threat, punishable by up to five years in prison. And he plead not guilty. So, did he or did he not call in a bomb threat? According to the article:
When questioned, Wells acknowledged calling in the threat after he and two friends traveling with him arrived about 15 minutes before the Jet Blue flight to Fort Lauderdale was scheduled to leave around 9:10 p.m. and was denied a boarding pass, Gates claimed.
I'm trying to figure out how that blibs a not guilty plea. I guess if you don't actually have a bomb, but pretend to, it's k'ilu you didn't even make a threat, since a threat is only real if you can back it up, otherwise it's just devarim b'alma. I'm also guessing there's some legal-eze at work here, but come on.
On a related note, this reminds me of the time I got a speeding ticket for going 48 in a 30, which was actually a 40 mph zone. When the judge asked me how I plead, I said, "Innocent." The judge looked at me and said, "You plead guilty or not guilty, I'll decide if you're innocent!" I thought he was going to throw me in jail, but I ended up getting off scott free. If I had plead guilty, the best I could have hoped for was a reduced fine with no points.
[Hat Tip: Aishel]
The burden is on the prosecution to prove guilt. Therefore, a defendant can (and should) plead not guilty at his or her arraignment. The only reason to plead guilty is in exchange for a reduced charge and/or sentence.
While it is permissible to plead not guilty even if one is in fact guilty, defendants may not lie when testifying, which is why many defendants do not take the stand.
Posted by: Joe Schick at October 24, 2006 2:43 PMDoes that include when the defendant confesses? It would seem that in this case the defendant admitted guilt (probably before he had spoken with a lawyer?)...even in that case one can enter a not guilty plea?
You would think that after all those Law and Order episodes, I would know this by now. ;)
Posted by: Greg at October 24, 2006 2:49 PMYes, a defendant is never required to plead guilty, because guilt must be proven by the prosecution at trial. Think of "not guilty" as a legal term, rather than as something that means "innocent."
Obviously, if this goes to trial, the prosecution will raise the confession, and the defendant will likely be found guilty. But the defendant can always plead not guilty, because a defendant is not deemed guilty until he or she is found guilty by the jury.
What appears to be going on here in that the prosecution is insisting that this guy do jail time, perhaps in a prison with others convicted of security offenses. The defense attorney is desperately trying to get his client a better deal, and/or trying to gain the Judge's sympathy in the hopes of a lesser sentence after conviction.
Posted by: Joe Schick at October 24, 2006 3:17 PMTurns out he pleaded guilty yesterday. http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/northern_california/15832160.htm
My guess is that prosecutors insisted on requesting that the Judge impose prison time, but agreed to request significantly less than five years.
Posted by: Joe Schick at October 24, 2006 3:22 PMThat's crazy...the article is pretty much the exact same as the link I posted above, just with guilty instead of not guilty. Crazy.
Posted by: Greg at October 24, 2006 3:52 PM
