'Agree with me or I will kill you': On plea bargaining, the death penalty, and life without parole

Me, Harris County DA Kim Ogg, and Shannon Edmonds from the Texas District and County Attorneys Association commented in a Houston Chronicle story this week on the role of life-without-parole sentences in plea bargaining in capital cases. I'd suggested:

"There has always been speculation about whether that has encouraged prosecutors to file capital cases more than they otherwise would because what better leverage do you have in a plea bargaining situation than, 'Agree with me or I will kill you,'" said Scott Henson policy director with the non-profit Just Liberty, which advocates for reducing incarceration. "The government will literally kill you if you don't go for life without parole and there is no stronger bargaining chip than that."

However,

District Attorney Kim Ogg, whose office has overseen less than 25 life without parole sentences since she took the reins last year, pushed back against that suggestion. 

"We don't use the death penalty as a plea bargaining tool," she said.

Hmmmm ... What is plea bargaining, Grits wonders, if not a negotiation over sentences? More lenient sentences are offered as an incentive for the defendant to admit guilt and avoid a trial. Since the only two sentences available for capital crimes in Texas are death and LWOP, one wonders what else there is to bargain over if the death penalty isn't used "as a plea bargaining tool"?

Taking the claim on its face, perhaps this might explain the large number of cases charged as capital which don't result in capital sentences: when prosecutors take death off the table in a capital case, LWOP becomes the top sentence in a plea negotiation. So offering non-capital murder or some other charge with the possibility of parole would become the only negotiating chip to incentivize plea deals. Sufficient, county-level charging data doesn't exist, to my knowledge, to confirm that hypothesis, but I'm not sure why anyone would plea bargain to LWOP if the death penalty weren't being threatened.

If the Harris DA under Kim Ogg doesn't use the death penalty to get LWOP plea bargains, I'm glad to hear it. Shannon Edmonds from TDCAA, however, considered it par for the course "that prosecutors used the death penalty to get a guilty plea."

Shannon Edmonds, staff attorney and director of governmental relations for the Texas District and County Attorneys Association, said his group doesn't have an official position on the matter. 

"It kind of tickles me that defense lawyers are upset that prosecutors aren't trying to kill their clients," he said. "Even if the punishment was a minimum of 40 years on a capital life sentence, they still complained that prosecutors used the death penalty to get a guilty plea. That's not anything unique to life without parole."

So, there's that.

Finally, Houston attorney Pat McCann raised an issue that's been discussed recently on this blog and on the podcast - non-capital cases don't receive legal representation at the habeas-corpus stage, nor automatic review by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals or the federal courts:

Unlike with death-sentenced cases, there's no automatic appointment of post-conviction appellate counsel and no punishment phase of the trial, which makes the whole process quicker and cheaper. 

"Life without parole was an unintentional gift to major urban prosecutors' offices," McCann said. "It makes it very easy to dispose of a large number of violent and often youthful offenders without any more thought than one would need to toss away a piece garbage."

Much has been written about the financial costs of the death penalty, but McCann's observation raises another important and less-often-discussed point: The reason the death penalty tends to drive criminal-justice debates isn't just the symbolic importance of imposing the maximum punishment. It's that defendants sentenced to the death penalty have attorneys representing them throughout the process, and so weak or unconstitutional prosecutions are more likely to be exposed.

Flawed forensics, for example, may be challenged at the habeas stage under Texas' junk science writ. But only capital defendants are guaranteed an attorney at that stage. Same goes for ineffective assistance, prosecutor misconduct, and other common habeas claims.

Death cases these days are more thoroughly vetted by appellate courts, at least at the federal level. (State-level representation in Texas capital cases too often remains shoddy.) But for the LWOP prisoners, McCann's "piece of garbage" comment isn't far off. Court of Criminal Appeals Judge Elsa Alcala has suggested extending the right to counsel in habeas proceedings to non-capital cases in order to pursue ineffective assistance claims. There's a strong argument to be made that LWOP sentences deserve the same level of automatic, post-conviction vetting.