GrainneDhu
Verified Expert
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2010
- Messages
- 5,159
- Reaction score
- 53
MOO - I don't know a lot about plea deals etc, but my GUESS is that if someone was threatening him they had to have known whether or not he had already spilled the beans. I guess I don't know...I assumed you only GOT a plea deal by already talking and your deal would be based on how much worthy information they received. It wouldn't make sense (to me) for them to give you a plea deal first, and then make you talk. You could give them nothing at that point AND get a lesser sentence.:waitasec:
SBM
How plea deals are usually arranged is one side makes an offer called a proffer. The proffer is phrased in a sort of "what if?" manner and is not admissible in court. It is also not probable cause, so there is not necessarily any investigative value to the fact of a proffer.
If the defence makes a proffer, it usually goes something like "what if my client were to be able to testify to x, y and z?"
If the prosecutor makes a proffer, it usually goes something like "if your client were to testify to x, y and z, then we would be prepared to drop to a lower charge or to recommend a certain sentence to the judge."
No matter what the two sides agree upon, the judge has the final say. If the judge refuses to sign off on the deal, the defendant can choose to change their plea.