In a shocking move, Plaxico Burress pleaded guilty to a sentence of 2 years imprisonment. It’s not so much shocking because it ended up this way, but because this offer would have remained on the table until trial, leaving his lawyer, Ben Brafman, with the chance to move, per Heller, to dismiss the indictment, without any risk to the defendant’s circumstances.
Of course, sometimes defendants just want to be done with the case. The fight drains out of them and the uncertainty becomes more painful than the harsh reality.
I wonder if that’s happened here.
The shame is that this was the perfect case for a Heller motion, but it’s not to be.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Yes, it’s totally incongruous that lunatics with assault weapons can parade their armaments in the parking lot of a presidential town hall yet another person in another state gets sent to prison for even possessing a weapon.
It is this sort of disparate treatment in the eyes of average citizens that make them say, “what the hell?” and have little or no regard for the Law.
As stupid as Burris’ action may have been, to literally ‘shoot himself in his own proverbial foot’ it hardly deserves two years prison sentence.
“[I]f that was all Plax had to offer, he might as well surrender while he’s at 100 Centre Street, as that’s not going to do the trick.”
So, I guess that is all he had to offer or are we all missing something that you won’t share? Seems like Burress should have saved himself a lot of headache and he should have worked this out a long time ago.
The answer to your question is in the post from whence it came, but there is never a guarantee that any tactic will work. No criminal defense lawyer would be so foolish as to believe that any tactic will guarantee a victory. But that doesn’t mean that it isn’t worth trying, or that it isn’t sound. The issue in the reference post was how to approach his grand jury testimony, and the point of the post was to distinguish between a serious effort and a yeoman’s job. So you’ve really done nothing more than taken a quote out of context and misapplied it.
Is you’re point is that he should have just pled guilty from the outset and done nothing further? I fail to see what would have been gained, just as I fail to see what the plea here, and now, gains, except finality. If he can take 2 years at any time before trial, and still had motions to be made, there was no other reason to give up now. And I wonder whether the Heller supporters, or lack thereof, had anything to do with this choice.
Two years…hmm, let’s ask Vick what that is in NFL years.
I can’t speak for the responder, but I read your earlier entries regarding Burress and some others. Maybe he was pointing out that you seem prone to making bold statements. I think you mentioned Brafman “nailed” it. If this is your vision of “nailing” it, than thank G-d I’ve never needed your assistance! All kidding aside (relax, don’t get so defensive. I can hear your heart beating), I’m guessing (educated guess of course) that the question(s) should really be – “Why, if the offer was presumably to stay open, did he not go with the Heller route? Was it his plan all along to try to get the grand jury to cave and nullify despite what you thoght? Is that really all he had? If there was more, why didn’t he try? Maybe Brafman is in fact a mortal?
Anyway, I enjoy reading your blog even if you are impressed with yourself. I hope your son’s fencing went well and look forward to reading more.
This referred to Brafman’s tactic of putting Plax into the grand jury in order to try to make something out of nothing. I realize that you’re not a lawyer, and hence can’t appreciate the point, but as I said to Allen T, Brafman employed the best tactic. That doesn’t mean he’s guaranteed to win. This is a concept that non-lawyers fail to grasp, and I understand why you wouldn’t be able to appreciate it. Brafman can do that absolute best possible, and Burress can still lose. Lawyers aren’t plumbers. We can’t guarantee that the pipes won’t leak. We can only do the best possible with what we have.
Brafman did nail it with his strategiy, which others challenged as being dangerous and foolish. I disagreed with the critics, and agreed with Brafman. But I would have anticipated that he would go the next step, the Heller motion, and only take the plea as a last resort. That’s the part that now remains a question.
Sorry if this sounds unduly grumpy (or self-impressed), but it gets tiresome explaining the obvious stuff to non-lawyers. To other criminal defense lawyers, this blawg is far less difficult to understand than it is to you. Glad you enjoy SJ, though it’s probably not a good blawg for you.