Apprendi and Plea Bargaining

By King, Nancy J.; Klein, Susan R. | Stanford Law Review, November 2001 | Go to article overview

Apprendi and Plea Bargaining


King, Nancy J., Klein, Susan R., Stanford Law Review


In his article Judicial Fact-Finding and Sentence Enhancements in a World of Guilty Pleas, (1) Professor Stephanos Bibas advances an arresting thesis. He argues that the Court's recent decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey (2) backfires as an attempt to protect constitutional values. His primary claim is that the Apprendi elements rule (3) will "hurt many of the defendants it purports to help by ... depriv[ing]defendants of sentencing hearings, the only hearings they are likely to have. By making important factual disputes elements of crimes, it forces defendants to surrender sentencing issues such as drug quantity when they plead guilty." (4) Professor Bibas does admit that the elements rule has the countervailing benefit of a right to proof beyond a reasonable doubt of maximum-enhancing facts at trial. He claims nevertheless that prosecutors can easily circumvent this right by trying to prove an aggravating fact again at the sentencing heating under a lower standard of proof, (5) and that most defendants cannot afford to go to trial to take advantage of this right, because going to trial means losing points for acceptance of responsibility, (6) and risks perjury, (7) obstruction of justice, (8) recidivism, (9) and other enhancements under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. (10) Thus, Professor Bibas concludes, the tragic consequence of Apprendi's elements rule is that "it has strengthened [the prosecutor's] bargaining position," (11) and "defendants on the whole will be worse off." (12)

This argument is indeed startling; it is also dead wrong. The prosecutor's coercive power to force a guilty plea is not strengthened by Apprendi. Every prosecutorial bargaining chip mentioned by Professor Bibas existed pre-Apprendi exactly as it does post-Apprendi. Before Apprendi, prosecutors using recidivism as a club could, and did, regularly insist that defendants admit aggravating facts as part of the plea or face additional time. When the prosecutor's threats of added time were not persuasive and the proof of aggravating facts weak, the defendant prior to Apprendi could refuse to admit to the aggravating fact, and plead guilty only to the offense without the aggravating fact. Nothing about Apprendi gives additional leverage to the prosecutor in this situation. A defendant who, prior to Apprendi, decided to risk trial rather than face the aggravated sentence will make the same decision after Apprendi. In fact, only one new bargaining chip is created in Apprendi, and the Court gives it unequivocally to the defendant. By raising the burden of proof, Apprendi makes it much more difficult for the prosecutor to prove aggravating facts that trigger longer sentences. If the prosecutor couldn't successfully convince the defendant to admit to the aggravating fact prior to Apprendi, his chances of successfully convincing the defendant to admit to it after Apprendi are lower, not higher.

As for those who would have pursued a guilty plea prior to Apprendi, they are not "on the whole" worse off either. Consider the single example Professor Bibas offers to prove his thesis: Al, the "typical federal drug trafficking defendant with one prior felony conviction" (13) whose dispute with the government concerns whether he is responsible for only the two kilos of cocaine found on his person, or also for the additional forty kilos found on his co-conspirators. Professor Bibas reasons that, before Apprendi, Al could plead guilty to the drug offense without a plea agreement, (14) obtain his three-point reduction for acceptance of responsibility under the Guidelines, and argue about the additional forty kilos at sentencing. If he wins, his guideline range for only two kilos is 63-78 months, if he loses, he faces 121-151 months for the forty-two kilos. (15) After Apprendi all of this changes, according to Professor Bibas. Proof of five or more kilograms of cocaine triggers an increased maximum sentence making drug quantity an element of a greater offense. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Apprendi and Plea Bargaining
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Help
Full screen

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Style
    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

    Cited passage

    Thanks for trying Questia!

    Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

    Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

    Buy instant access to save your work.

    Already a member? Log in now.

    Oops!

    An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.