# Are prosecutors allowed to renege on a deal in any circumstance?



## ironpony (Jun 8, 2019)

For my story, I wanted the villain, who is a gang leader to have collateral on all his gang members, so none of them would turn, cause the collateral would keep them all at bay.  However, I wast told it might not work, since if any wanted to turn, they could just cut a deal for immunity.

But is there any reason that the villain leader, could make the immunity not work, or get the prosecutor to renege, when giving them the collateral evidence, if a member turns?


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jun 9, 2019)

If you break any condition of a plea they can yank it, often with penalties that allow them to keep knowledge of everything they have till now.

The Judge can also throw out a plea if it disgusts them enough. In fact they warn the plaintiff before they accept it that they are not obligated to accept it because it is an agreement between criminal and prosecutor. Judge can do whatever he/she please and treat it like a guilty plea. I have seen judged amend a deal because they thought it was wrong.


----------



## ironpony (Jun 9, 2019)

Oh okay thanks.  I mean in situations where the defendant cooperates fully with the conditions, but if anything external from that can cause a plea to be reneged.  Or if the defendant cooperates fully, than that's that, and they are a free person who no fear of the law being able to change their mind...


----------



## luckyscars (Jun 9, 2019)

Ralph Rotten said:


> If you break any condition of a plea they can yank it, often with penalties that allow them to keep knowledge of everything they have till now.
> 
> The Judge can also throw out a plea if it disgusts them enough. In fact they warn the plaintiff before they accept it that they are not obligated to accept it because it is an agreement between criminal and prosecutor. Judge can do whatever he/she please and treat it like a guilty plea. I have seen judged amend a deal because they thought it was wrong.



Technically you are correct: It's 100% true that the judge has to sign off on the plea deal negotiated by the prosecution and defense and judges have total discretion under the law to say no to requests for sentences (as that is their domain), however in some jurisdictions the judge is officially part of approving the plea deal in advance of sentencing. In most others, at the very least, they would indicate whether they would agree to a plea bargain's terms in advance of it being presented, or the DA would know the judge's jurisprudence well enough to infer what would fly. 

If the prosecutor or judge knowingly or tacitly fucks over the plaintiff by offering a plea bargain to coerce a confession and the plea deal is subsequently denied, due to improper behavior on the part of the prosecutor, that is grounds for a mistrial at best, a civil rights lawsuit at worst. A plea deal is essentially a waiver of constitutional rights. If the plea deal was agreed to by the defendant on the reliance of a prosecutor's promises and the prosecutor's promises subsequently fail to hold up because the prosecutor is unethical or incompetent or both, the plaintiff would then be entitled to some form of remedy (such as withdrawing the guilty plea).

This is quite rare, though...or should be. Prosecutors and judges are professionals, bound by professional ethics. A competent defense counsel is there to make sure this shit doesn't happen to his/her client. If judges/prosecutors start acting in bad faith, they'll find themselves in hot water pretty quick.

I gotta say...itdoesn't even make sense on a practical standpoint for a prosecutor to offer a plea bargain that they aren't sure will go through. Doing so would damage their integrity and perception of their legal judgment - who would agree to a plea deal with them next time?



ironpony said:


> Oh okay thanks. I mean in situations where the defendant cooperates fully with the conditions, but if anything external from that can cause a plea to be reneged. Or if the defendant cooperates fully, than that's that, and they are a free person who no fear of the law being able to change their mind...



Like what kind of external? Do you mean in terms of evidence? Like... if the plea bargain was all set up for Joe Schmoe to get 20 years for murder and then further evidence and witnesses came forward (presumably provided by the other gang members) to suggest he had committed ten other murders plus a couple rapes?

In that sort of instance, the plea bargain could be nuked, yes, as the plea bargain is only good for the charges Joe Schmoe agrees he is guilty of - one - and the agreed penalty of 20 years...for that one crime, in that specific set of circumstances.

 The other crimes and their evidence/witnesses could then be prosecuted as separate crimes and counts and therefore extraneous to the original charge & with their own punishment. Depending on the situation and the timing of this new revelation, the plea could either be reneged and renegotiated with the other crimes factored in (assuming there was anything to renegotiate) or upheld as-is but the sentence subsequently expanded as the plaintiff Joe is then found guilty or innocent of the other charges. 

But the law cannot, at least in theory, 'change its mind' because it wants to. It's not supposed to be subject to personal whim - What that would involve is flat-out corruption. For the reasons I just described, it is unprofessional and unethical and will probably cause more trouble than its worth down the road. Does it ever happen? Sure, probably. There's corruption all over the place. But it isn't _supposed _to happen. Not in America. In America the justice system has its checks and balances and is not supposed to be subject to what side of the bed the judge or DA rolled out of bed on.

But also..also...it's your book, you can write it how you want.


----------



## ironpony (Jun 10, 2019)

Yes that is what I mean could the defendant make a deal for immunity, but than other evidence on him came to light later?

In my story, the leader of the gang of villains, has collateral evidence on all the other members so if they try to bring him down, they go down too.  However, would this even work, cause all one gang member has to do is get an immunity deal, and therefore the collateral the leader has on his on him would be legally useless, cause he has immunity.  So would the concept of having collateral on all the members even work therefore?


----------



## luckyscars (Jun 10, 2019)

ironpony said:


> Yes that is what I mean could the defendant make a deal for immunity, but than other evidence on him came to light later?
> 
> In my story, the leader of the gang of villains, has collateral evidence on all the other members so if they try to bring him down, they go down too.  However, would this even work, cause all one gang member has to do is get an immunity deal, and therefore the collateral the leader has on his on him would be legally useless, cause he has immunity.  So would the concept of having collateral on all the members even work therefore?



In the real world...no, probably it would never happen because the priority for the police would be the LEADER of the gang and the only point to offering an immunity deal to an underling would be to nail the LEADER and if the LEADER has already gone down due to beyond-reasonable-doubt levels of evidence, why offer immunity to the others?

 However blowing up an asteroid with a nuke doesn't work either and it's still a good story. I assume this isn't supposed to be a courtroom procedural. In which case you are fixating on a realism issue that, provided you write it competently, will not cause a problem.


----------



## ironpony (Jun 10, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> In the real world...no, probably it would never happen because the priority for the police would be the LEADER of the gang and the only point to offering an immunity deal to an underling would be to nail the LEADER and if the LEADER has already gone down due to beyond-reasonable-doubt levels of evidence, why offer immunity to the others?
> 
> However blowing up an asteroid with a nuke doesn't work either and it's still a good story. I assume this isn't supposed to be a courtroom procedural. In which case you are fixating on a realism issue that, provided you write it competently, will not cause a problem.



Oh I meant if the leader hasn't gone down by evidence.  Would having collateral on an underling do any good I mean, if the underling can just get immunity for the collateral evidence?


----------



## luckyscars (Jun 10, 2019)

ironpony said:


> Oh I meant if the leader hasn't gone down by evidence.  Would having collateral on an underling do any good I mean, if the underling can just get immunity for the collateral evidence?



Since when do people get convicted without evidence?


----------



## ironpony (Jun 10, 2019)

But there is all the collateral evidence, isn't there? Or do you mean evidence on the leader?


----------

