Plea Bargaining 201

Maybe it’s just me, but almost every academic analysis of the propriety and efficacy of plea bargaining reflects a basic misconception of the dynamics.  A new article by Professors Oren Bar-Gill and Omri Ben-Shahar, entitled “The Prisoners’ (Plea Bargain) Dilemma,” appears in Summer 2009 issue of The Journal of Legal Analysis. via Doug Berman, does it again.  Here’s the quote from Doug’s post, broken up for readability:


How can a prosecutor, who has only limited resources, credibly threaten so many defendants with costly and risky trials and extract plea bargains involving harsh sentences?  Had defendants refused to settle, many of them would not have been charged or would have escaped with lenient sanctions. But such collective stonewalling requires coordination among defendants, which is difficult if not impossible to attain.  Moreover, the prosecutor, by strategically timing and targeting her plea offers, can create conflicts of interest among defendants, frustrating any attempt at coordination.  

The substantial bargaining power of the resource-constrained prosecutor is therefore the product of the collective action problem that plagues defendants.  This conclusion suggests that, despite the common view to the contrary, the institution of plea bargains may not improve the well-being of defendants.  Absent the plea bargain option, many defendants would not have been charged in the first place.  Thus, we can no longer count on the fact that plea bargains are entered voluntarily to argue that they are desirable for all parties involved.

Anybody want to take a guess what’s missing from this description?  That’s right, the criminal defense lawyer.  Plea bargaining isn’t a staring contest between prosecutor and defendant.  At least it isn’t supposed to be.

Defense counsel should be well aware of the limited resources available to try cases, and this should be incorporated in any discussion about a plea offer with the defendant.  The problems arise from two independent sources.  First, that defense counsel can’t try a case.  Second, that even if defense counsel is fully capable of trying a case, enough other defendants will cop a plea freeing up sufficient resources for the prosecutor to call the bluff.

First things first. There are a ton of criminal defense lawyers, yet very few cases tried in New York.  Very few indeed.  If you ask lawyers, most of them will tell you war stories about their glorious trial victories and their vast experience in the trenches.  The problem is that the numbers don’t add up.  If only ten cases were tried in New York County in a given week, then 100 lawyers claiming they were on trial doesn’t work.  In other words, they are lying through their teeth.

Some years ago, I did an evidentiary hearing before Judge Kimba Wood in the Southern District of New York on a habeas motion, where the defendant had a great defense but was pushed into a plea in a New Jersey case with the lawyer misstating the consequence on his federal parole.  The Jersey lawyer took the stand.  On cross, I asked him whether he told his client that he was a very experienced criminal defense lawyer.  With his chest puffed outward, he proclaimed that he was indeed a very experienced lawyer.

I then asked him to tell the judge how many felony cases he had tried to verdict before a jury as a defense lawyer.  He hemmed.  He hawed. I asked whether he had a problem, and he muttered that he was thinking.  Judge Wood grew impatient, and finally, said, “So how many?”

His answer was spoken so softly that if could barely be heard,  “None”.  Of course, he never informed his client that he was highly experienced in pleading his clients guilty, but nothing more.

That not all trench lawyers are what they purport to be is a hard, cold fact of life in the trenches, though Professors Oren Bar-Gill and Omri Ben-Shahar do not appear to recognize it as a pervasive problem and integral part of the analysis.  And it leads to the second missing factor, that defendants can’t seem to coordinate themselves sufficiently to call the prosecutors’ bluff.

For those of us who can and do try cases, it’s foolish to place our clients at the mercy of pretenders.  The prosecutors know who won’t try a case.  So do we.  They may be full of bravado when the prosecution isn’t ready, but they shrivel up like a dip in freezing water the minute the judge calls for a jury panel.  If they push the envelope far enough, the prosecutor has no choice but to use his scarce resources to go to trial, and they will.  Game over for the pretender.

Even amongst ourselves, the assumption that the defendants would subjugate their personal liability to the good of the whole smacks of a lack of realism.  Some defendants are offered sweet pleas, and they take them.  They should.  No defendant is going to risk a decade plus in prison for the benefit of the collective whole.  They serve their time alone, and it’s hardly heroic to take one for the team.  No one will throw them a party when they get out.

Coordination is a wonderful goal, but the criminal defense bar is feral at best.  We won’t be herded.  We don’t play well with others. When it’s been proposed via our hapless specialized bar associations that we put our collective might together, a group always emerges that rejects the idea.  Sometimes they scream “antitrust”, and other times they just see it as an opportunity to take advantage of the fools who will allow their clients to be used for the cause, giving them an opportunity to cut and run for the benefit of their own clients.  But it never happens.

Many of us who have the willingness to try a case have tested the theory of scarce resources.  I have never had a prosecutor, when pushed to the limit, run away.  The plea offer may be sweetened considerably at the last minute, but when rejected nonetheless, the case goes to trial. 

This should come as no surprise: One of the primary reasons for signing up to prosecute is to get trial experience.  In other words, the individuals who serve as prosecutors want to try cases.  The problem with a systemic shortage of resources isn’t their problem, so what do they care?  Let the administrators wring their hands over where the courtrooms are going to come from.  They only need one courtroom to try one case.

Moreover, the worst that can happen if they try a lousy case is that they lose. Unlike the defense, a loss doesn’t mean someone goes to prison.  Granted, the other assistants may make fun of them at the bar after the verdict, but that’s why they go to bars afterward.  By the third round, all is forgotten.

The lawprofs posit that “[a]bsent the plea bargain option, many defendants would not have been charged in the first place,” This assumes that rational prosecutors would exercise their discretion to avoid charging defendants upon whom they wouldn’t want to waste scare trial resources.  Or more defendants would plead to the charge and get stiffer sentences. Or they would increase the resources to try more cases.  But that would require criminal defense lawyers to be capable of trying cases.

The problem with the conclusion is that the now-defendants who wouldn’t be charged if there were no plea bargains are the ones who get trivial sentences, not the harsh sentences that the lawprofs believe are “extracted”.  The defendants receiving the harsh sentences would be the ones forced to trial, to whom scare resources are allocated, and would, if they are convicted, receive even harsher sentences.  And that assuming the existence of the rational prosecutor. Wanna bet your client’s life on the rational prosecutor?

Plea bargains are outlets, safety valves for the innocent and guilty alike.  If it’s bad for an innocent person to go to prison for 5 years, it’s worse for ten.  Not every defendant has the risk tolerance for trial, and not every innocent defendant has a defense.  Don’t blame the plea bargain for the coerciveness that pushes a person to willingly slam the prison door on himself.  Blame a system where innocent people get convicted, where judges smile as they ignore the Constitution and where criminal defense lawyers pretend they can provide
effective representation when they intended to plead the case out from the very first “hello”.

When a scholarly analysis of plea bargaining takes the harsh reality of the trenches into account, wake me up. In the meantime, we’re better with ugly plea bargains than no option to trial at all.

31 thoughts on “Plea Bargaining 201

  1. Walter Reaves

    A law professor writing about plea bargaining is about like me writing an article on open heart surgery. Do we really expect them to have a clue about how things really work.

  2. Jim Keech

    Actually, I HAVE had them “run away” on several occasions. When you’ve thumped the same DPA 12 times running, they tend to get a little gunshy. Now granted, these were not major felony cases, they were primarily misdemeanor assault cases, but I’ve had it happen on low level felonies as well.

    It also helps when you’re the Public Defender and can keep the trial calendar eight deep in trial settings while the speedy trial clock ticks down.

  3. SHG

    Being private, I never had the opportunity to thump the same DPA 12 times, though it sounds like fun.  I was also going to mention the additional wrinkle of playing the 30.30 game, but figured that would confuse non-NY lawyers and muddy the point.

  4. Thomas R. Griffith

    Sir, thanks for Plea Bargaining 201.
    Please bare in mind, it’s the only post that I can’t bring myself to agree on 100%. The very last sentence still allows the innocent to be caught up in the game vs. letting the jury do their job. If an attorney’s pre-investgation shows he / she is guilty, why even take the case.

    I’ve had the pleasure to take it to trial w/ a paid attorney (Harris, Co. TX) in 84. Lunch recess on day one he said ADA is agreeing to 10 you’ll get out in 3 & get on w/ your life, instead risking 99. Now I had inmates weighing in saying he just sold you out-fire him & you gonna let him fry. All this minutes after a robbery victim just described a totally different person & pointed at me saying that’s him but he looked different.

    When I tried to fire him the judge (the famous ‘Happy Face’ one) said sit down-shut up or I’ll charge you w/ contempt. He released the jury & took me to the judge’s chambers and asked if I had anything to say? While I was saying, “I wanted a trial & now yall are stopping it. If it’s the last thing I do, I’ll prove it myself that I’m not guilty”, the judge said stop wasting my time & sign.

    If the Plea Bargain never was introduced or had he rejected it (like I did) my 5 alibis witnesses would’ve taken the stand & I most certainly would’ve been found not guilty. 12 people wouldn’t have wasted their time and the taxpayers wouldn’t have wasted money. Then of course had the Grand Jury noticed that the frigin robber had straight black hair & no mustache vs. my DL & mugshot showing I had wavy sun streaked brown hair & a mustache for over 4 yrs., there wouldn’t have been a trial.

    Anyway, it lead to; me becoming a private investigator, writing a book(The Griffith Files – 1984 & Beyond) & the creation of PROJECT: Not Guilty. Plus, I never would’ve became a Simple Justice follower and wouldn’t be on Chpt. 2 of Ordinary Injustice. I hope you unsderstand it’s hard for all of us to agree we’re better of w/ ugly plea bargains, for in my case a robber got away & an innocent went to prison.

    This very same attorney provided me w/ a letter of rec. for a full pardon “based on the facts of the case.” Go figure? He’s on his way to being famous also & doesn’t even know it. Thanks again.

  5. SHG

    It’s important to take a broader view of the situation. Not all defendants have your will to face your accusers, and not all defendants have 5 alibi witnesses.  I’ve written at great length about lawyers imposing their will on defendants to take pleas that defendants do not want to take, and I am vehemently against it.  The decision always belong exclusively to the defendant, and the lawyer’s duty is to fully and honestly explain all the factors that should go into making the decision.  Then it’s up to each individual to determine what’s right for him.  Some want to take the plea, and they should be able to do so if that’s their desire.

  6. Joseph Potter

    I do not dispute any of your facts, experience, or knowledge about the current system.

    I do dispute the final conclusion. If there is no trial, then there is no justice. No justice for the defendant, victims of the crime, or society at large.

    By letting the prosecutors get away with coercing a plea from 98 percent of the people they charge; we encourage a system that is barbaric, insane, and without any merit.

    It is the plea bargain that allows us to send to prison 9 times as many people per capita as our European counterparts.

    I am not a lawyer, only a teacher. So you may discount the above words, but I see no honest system of justice in this country at this time. Plea bargains being one of the many factors, and perhaps the largest one.

    No one should ever be convicted without a jury of his peers saying that he was, in fact, guilty. If we have too many people charged to do this; then we have too many laws. (drug laws for example)

  7. John Neff

    Imagine that there are no hypothetical situations and that we have to confront reality. Suppose that plea bargaining involves a rational resource constrained
    1) defendant
    2) defense attorney
    3) prosecuting attorney
    4) and a judge who accepts or rejects the bargain

    In most cases all parties are resource constrained
    but the results suggest that it is not necessary for all parties to be rational.

    So how does plea bargaining work when one or more of the parties is irrational? My guess is that is works very slowly.

  8. Jdog

    Sure. As an outsider — thankfully; I’d rather not be the guest of honor in any criminal proceeding — it seems to me that, in at least many cases, a plea bargain is definitely in the interest of the GoH. That’s an utterly horrible thing in the case of the factually innocent guy, but perhaps not as utterly horrible as spending even more time in prison. (I hope it doesn’t sound like I’m blase about the idea and the reality of guys who didn’t do it going to prison for it, as I’m very much not.)

  9. Casey O'Brien

    In my experience as a career prosecutor, there are three kinds of cases with many exceptions, that go to trial: the very serious, the very solid, and the very close. The other 95% are plead. I have often wondered what would happen if the defense community balked and refused to bargain. The obvious answer is that everything would come to a screaming halt. I have to laugh every time I hear someone running for DA campaign on a “get tough on crime stance” that they will end plea bargaining. It might work in Cut-n-shoot, but not in the big city. If you want to cut down on the prison population, narrow the crimes that carry prison penalties and eliminate some mala prohibita crimes. That, by the way, is a legislative function.

  10. Windypundit

    I’m probably even more clueless than the law profs, but their assertion that “we can no longer count on the fact that plea bargains are entered voluntarily to argue that they are desirable for all parties involved” sounds like a fairly routine bit of economic reasoning, and as such it seems neither controversial nor profound.

    Plea bargaining is a bit like fire insurance: By accepting it, you take a certain loss to avoid a risk of greater loss. On a pure dollars-and-cents basis, buying insurance is a loss: On average, you’d be better off investing your insurance payments and taking the occasional severe loss when your home burns down. But we don’t live life “on average,” so most of us buy insurance.

    Similarly, the criminally accused as a whole might be better off without plea bargaining. Adding up the raw years of prison time, it might be that the increase in harsh sentences might be more than made up for by the far larger number of mild sentences that are avoided. Of course, “the criminally accused as a whole” are not your client.

    Note the emphasis on “might.” This is theorizing without data. And your second point is a really important one. Just as fire only hits a small number of homes each year, the prosecutor can only take a small number of cases to trial. But unlike a fire, the prosecutor is not random. He’s like an arsonist who can tell which houses will burn best, and who makes a point of burning down homes that have no insurance.

  11. SHG

    My view may be somewhat skewed since I only handle serious cases. But even when I did misdemeanors, I can’t remember a single time that a prosecutor dropped a case when I refused a plea. 

  12. Windypundit

    Yes, but I think we’re discussing plea bargaining as a matter of public policy. Just because individual defendants don’t want to risk a trial for the good of team doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be good for the team if we forced them to. That’s sort of the point (or at least the justification) of criminal law. Murderers don’t want to go to jail for the good of society, but it’s probably best for society if they do.

  13. SHG

    The lawprofs are arguing that it does more harm than good, and base their argument on individual reactions to plea bargaining (its coercive nature). To do that, it’s necessary to understand how and why defendants respond to plea offers.  If there was greater faith in the system, such that people believed that trials produced fair outcomes, there would be greater desire to do away from plea bargains.  Many do not have such great faith in jury trials that they are willing to roll the dice.

    And murderers don’t go to jail (prison) on their own accord. Usually, someone makes them.

  14. Thomas R. Griffith

    Mr. Potter,
    You don’t have to be a lawyer to be a “Man of ideas”. It’s the presenting of them to the right people that matters. An incomplete trial = An incomplete and unjust remedy.

  15. Jim Keech

    All of the arguments in favor of permitting any particular defendant to negotiate a plea deal are completely valid. I certainly can’t argue with the client who can’t make bail that they should stay there another month when there’s a time served offer on the table. In many cases, it would be in their long-term best interest to fight it, but that’s hard to sell.

    Their validity does not, however, change the fact that wholesale plea-bargaining is incredibly destructive. It leads, inevitably, to the creation of “defense counsel” who never try cases. It leads to wide-spread and consistent overcharging by prosecutors. It has turned the presumption of innocence into nothing more than a sick joke.

    The situation in Tenaha, TX is not an aberration–it is the current criminal justice system taken to the next logical step. And those “conceptual ledges” exist primarily in theory–in reality they’re barely speed bumps.

    No, I don’t have the answer. My personal suspicion is that we are too far down the road to have any prayer of correcting the situation. We, and our clients, will continue to do the best we can in each case; even as, like stockyard workers, we lose the ability to detect the stench that rises around us.

  16. Thomas R. Griffith

    Mr. O’Brien, Greetings Sir. Re: nolo contendere proceedures in Open Court taking place in Judge Charles J. Hearn’s chambers, AKA:(Happy Face).

    Sound familar? “If it’s the last thing I do, I’ll prove it myself that I’m not guilty….” Then the judge barking to “stop wasting his time & sign.”

    Years latter, recall writing the following; *”None of us have ever tried someone we did not personally believe based on the evidence, was innocent of the crime.” Touting Harris County in house motto, “Always do the right thing for the right reasons” to the Chronicle?, *”the state should provide complete discovery. Most good DA’s do, particularly when the DA has a rep. for fair dealing” to Mr. Bennett?, *”I’m not looking for absolution of my sins” to Grits? *”I do not recommend Griffith for a full pardon based on innocence” to the Board. Suggesting that our Cert. Mail to the rob. victim requesting a letter of recommendation was a threat? Despite it including an invitation to speak w/ reporters, go on the Opera show, copies of info. & how mailing address was obtained.

    With that in mind. I thank the following; *my wife a Paralegal 20 + yrs. exp. for ecouraging my ambitions to become a Private Investigator & keep my word to the (Open Court). *My instructors & mentors directions on how to pick a closed case for my first Project. *The F.O.I. Acts. allowing me to purchase proof of my actual innocence. Ex: (Houston P.D. Incident Report, color police photo & cert. court case files). *God for not allowing the destruction of the info. *Then of course, Mr. Greenfield for (Plea Bargaining 201) & allowing discussions and mentioning ORDINARY INJUSTICE by Ms. Amy Bach.

    I’m contacting you in response to your comment in hopes that you’ll do the right thing for the right reason by supplying the missing peices to the puzzle. The Griffith Files – 1984 & Beyond, will go to print with or without your input. You may include a 1984 photo of yourself.

    (1)*How many people were arrested in all? (2)*What were the races of each? (3)*How many of them fit the original descriptions? (4)*Where did you obtain the .38 cal. Rohm from, since no records exsist? (5)*Did you order the Exhibit clerk to “…persoanlly destroy it…” as she claims, despite no records in exsistance? (6)*Who created the 1984 & 1991 State’s Exhibits sheets w/ 3 # 2’s in all? (7)*You believe you
    “did the right thing” by taking charges and convincing Dan Jackson to lead me to chambers to plead nolo contendere, despite obvious eyewitness discrepantcies, 5 alibis witnesses & no gun? (8)*As you & the victim peered through the court room window while my family & alibis listened on, what was said?(9)*Why was gun in court?

    Any action you take will clearify if you are a man of his word or just another former ADA trolling the lawyer blogs tooting your own horn and distancing yourself from the bad apples. We pray your actions are guided by your heart & you honor the motto. Thanks, Have a good day

  17. Casey O'Brien

    Mr. Griffin, I am sorry you feel wronged by the criminal justice system, but you or may not be surprised by my failure to remember a plea 25 years ago, that I may or may not have been involved with. As for Judge Hearn, who passed away some 10 years ago; he was certainly human, but on the whole, one of the most honorable people I ever met.

  18. Blind Guy

    There are also some D’s that will have a hang up about copping to certain crimes. Some would rather try and lose a sex case than admit the facts, even when copping would mean less time. You can always claim innocence (the jury screwed it up) when you lose at trial. Not so much when you take plea.

  19. Thomas R. Griffith

    Mr. BG, Very good point. It’d be great to see a respected law type follow up on it. Imploring attorneys hell bent on “tapping out” and making a living pleading nolo contendere, to fully explain it’s considered a “Guilty” plea. Adding that you have 30 days to appeal.

    When enough not guilty pleas refuse to switch & force the PD to earn their checks, they’d have to pitch tents on the court house lawn due to overcrowding. Then just maybe someone in power would put an end to arresting people to justify promotions / pay raises. The 95% cop out rate (Mr. O’Brien) enjoyed for decades would do an about face, resulting in less prison population. Just a thought. Thanks.

  20. Thomas R. Griffith

    Mr. O’Brien, Thanks for replying to my personal experience with Plea Bargaining 201 & abuse of it. It’s completely understandable,memory fades. My attorney suffered the same exact dilemma & didn’t keep records beyond three yrs. Upon receiving copies of everything, he immediately sent a letter of recommendation for a full pardon based on actual innocence-“based on facts in the case.” Every Christmas we send him my mugshot to help him never forget that all cases arn’t plea material.

    Duplicate packages were mailed to the 263rd court & the victim, in which he forwarded to you in 99 & 04. We would be more than happy to assist you in remembering this particular event of plea bargain abuse & why it shouldn’t be resorted to 95% of the time. We can re-send the info. to DA, Ms. Lykos, Mr. Bennett or the Houston Chronicle to your attention?

    Anything we can do, to asist you in remembering where you obtained the .38 cal. Rohm (Mystery Gun) from, etc…, name it. As far as sending me a letter of recommendation, I know that’s not happening. It would require you admitting a miscarriage of justice occurred with one of your 95%.

    *Please consider going to ordinaryinjustice.com & tell Ms. Amy Bach you were the ADA on my case & that I recommended you. You’ll be able to personally relate to Chapter 1 & 2. Thank you.

  21. Peter

    Is not the real abuse of Plea bargaining is when the Prosecutor uses it as a weapon to extract a Guilty plea. Consider the following example. Persons accused of fraud. Prosecutor says they will oppose any bail as they had to be extridited for trial. Prosecutor then tells the accused that they will accept a short jail term a Guilty plea. If they do not accept it, they will spend longer in jail on remand than is on offer, adn prosecutor will be pushing for maximum penalty.
    So on offer….
    1. Plead guilty and get, say, 1 year in jail
    2. Plead not guilty, spend, say, 2 years on remand and posssible 20 year sentence.

    Given that choice what is your answer?

  22. SHG

    Of course plea bargaining is inherently coercive, and prosecutors (with the enablement of judges) will use the threat of remand to compel someone to ignore innocence or a viable defense by taking the path of least resistance.  But that’s where defense lawyers come in.

    Using your scenario, which can only happen with the willing cooperation of the judge since it’s the judge’s decision whether to remand the defendant (the ultimate sentence being a factor relevant to remand but otherwise a constant in any criminal prosecution), the choice is determined by risk tolerance.  The defendant can always refuse the plea and the defense attorney can bring a writ to get the defendant appropriate bail.  This may not work, but it’s an option.  It’s all about weighing the options.  No defendant, whether because of plea offer or not, is guaranteed a happy experience from criminal prosecution.  What if there was no 1 year offer and the defendant was remanded and faced trial with a 20 year mandatory minimum?  Is he better off without the option?

    That’s the problem.  Criminal prosecution offers little to be happy about to begin with. As I tell my clients, there’s no option that he says he’s sorry, everybody shakes hands and goes home.  Without that, I would rather the defendant have the opportunity to make a choice than be left with no choice at all.

  23. John David Galt

    It seems to me that the next to last paragraph is the key to this post. It will take constitutional change to enable victims of unconstitutional behavior by a judge to hold him accountable, but it should be possible now (assuming the data is public record) for somebody to start a Consumer Reports-like service about attorneys, thus enabling defendants to *find* one with lots of actual trial experience.

    If I were doing it I would talk all about the good ones and avoid mentioning the “pretenders” at all — that ought to make the site safe from predatory libel suits by pretenders.

  24. Thomas R. Griffith

    Mr. O’Brien, I promised Mrs. Amy Bach, that I’d treat her book (Ordinary Injustice) like a college course & report back with my thoughts. I just finished it and now feel that you should be able to relate to the “entire” book.

    I would be more than happy to let you borrow my signed copy. You can email and or phone in an address where to send it. You may keep the “Mugshot Bookmark” as my gift.

    Note: From 84 to 98 my lawyer was the blame. Records purchased in 98 indicates an entire group participated. Ordinary Injustice confirmed that it wasn’t an isolated incident.

    Project: Not Guilty will prevent the “knowingly & willingly” participants the pleasure of forgetting. Obtaining wrongful convictions with a group effort is organized crime. Doing the right thing should be second nature instead of a vague “in house” motto. Thank you.

  25. Audrey White

    My jury was definitely not my peers….they obviously knew nothing of business, and did not ask the right questions among themselves. Do not fool yourself into thinking trials are fair. Prosecutors are there to convict regardless of the facts.

  26. Thomas R. Griffith

    For the record – Mr. O’Brien, (with Mr. Greenfield’s permission), I’d like to announce that as of today, you have not made any attempts what-so-ever to take me up on my public offer (see above) to supply you with copies of records so that you may refresh your memory.

    I have mailed copies to the Harris County D.A. Post Conviction Unit along with copies of our discussion here in the Simple Justice Comment Section, with a request to forward a set of them to you for review. I will be Posting copies to; YouTube, Facebook, MySpace, PNG, SMU Law Library and any Blawg/Blog that’ll allow it on the Anniversary date for public scrutiny.

    Don’t be surprised to see that they are from Thomas R. Griffith as opposed to the “Griffin” you purposely replied to. Which reminds me that, ‘your’ first Indictment was for ‘Griffin’. Hmm, only you know what that’s all about? You may or may not be surprised that I have kept my promise to prove I’m not guilty despite the creepy no contest games you, my attorney & the Judge played.

    Now that I’ve proved it, you are on record coming out of retirement twice (1999 & 2002) to write to the TBP&P to contest my application(s) for Full Pardon – based on innocence. I could careless about a Full Pardon at this point; IMHO, it’s a worthless piece of paper when one is ‘not’ guilty. It should be a Full Apology – based on false arrest & wrongful conviction. I just want to know where you obtained the ‘Mystery’ gun from & how did you get a Judge to go along with you presenting a .38 Rohm w/ a 5 or 6 in barrel in a case allegedly involving a .22 w/ a 2 in barrel as a State’s Exhibits? Thanks. Have a good day.

Comments are closed.