Legal Question in Criminal Law in California
Murder Trial
Case:
1st degree murder trial
Jury comes back hung
Judge orders jury
to return to deliberation
and not to come
back until they have
a verdict
Original defense attorney decides to fill for miss
trial due to the judges coercing the jury.
Original attorney is called away to handle family
emergency
Firm partner takes over
Defendant decides to plead guilty to 2nd degree murder
in hopes of the possibility of parole
The plea is excepted and the judge dismisses the jury .
Question:
Can the defendant change his plea back to not guilty
and get a new trial?
If the original attorney filled his appeal before defendant
changed plea,
(1) would the appeals court hear the case?
(2) If they agree that the judge did in fact
persuade jurors, would the defendant�s
plea be overturned and would he be
entitled to a new trial?
1 Answer from Attorneys
Re: Murder Trial
A defendant cannot plead guilty to a lesser offense unless the prosecutor agrees to reduce the charges and the judge approves the deal. Your hypothetical defendant was charged with first degree murder and can only plead guilty to that charge if the prosecutor doesn't want to make a deal.
I doubt that any court would allow a defendant who already has had a trial but pled guilty before the verdict to just change his mind and get a new trial. If the plea was accepted improperly the court might have to allow it, but such errors don't happen very often.
Only a handful of arguments are generally available to a defendant who pleads guilty. Unless the trial cout issues a certificate of probable cause which agrees that the issue is potentially meritorious, the defendant in your case would not be able to argue that the judge improperly pressured the jury.
If the lawyer had already filed a notice of appeal the defendant would not be able to withdraw his guilty plea because the trial court would have lost jurisdiction over the case. And as I said earlier, it is unlikely a court would let him do this even if it could.
Finally, even if the defendant could argue on appeal that the judge had acted improperly, he would almost surely lose. The judge didn't tell the jury to convict him; she just ordered them to reach a verdict. That is what judges are supposed to do when a jury says it is deadlocked, unless it appears that the jurors' disagreements cannot be overcome. Most judges won't even consider that possibility until the jury comes back a second time and reports that it still can't reach a unanimous verdict.
Related Questions & Answers
-
Medical use of marijuanan a crime? My son has been served with a supeona to be... Asked 4/26/07, 10:09 am in United States California Criminal Law
-
No firearms as condition of domestic violence In aug. '01, I was charged with... Asked 4/26/07, 12:43 am in United States California Criminal Law
-
Rights if charges on a person we're droped could the d.a. pick them back up later Asked 4/25/07, 5:48 pm in United States California Criminal Law