Gyroscopic Investing

Apart from the particulars of these cases, plea bargains in general are in my opinion corrupt. Throw 8 lifetimes sentences at somebody and then offer them a slap on the wrist if they plead guilty. The practice should be abolished.

Smith1776 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2025 11:53 am Some bitcoin addresses from the Silk Road era "woke up" as soon as Ross Ulbricht went home.

Obviously that's not conclusive proof they belong to Ross, but it does underscore an important point: even when given a life sentence in prison you can still maintain possession of your bitcoin!

Hah! Very interesting. They say every criminal has a stash.
I have to admit, bitcoins wins in this case. With gold, you’d need to hide it in advance.

But also, the world wouldn't be notified when you started spending your gold.

glennds wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2025 8:07 am The plot thickens a little if you consider that 79% of those convicted for Jan 6th pleaded guilty. Theoretically the power of pardon is intended to right the wrong of the innocent person who has been convicted. But how does that square with a person who pleaded guilty.

I expect the answer will be that those that pleaded guilty were being abused by a corrupt Justice Dept and thus did so under duress.

It's also hard to square the plight of Officer Michael Fanone, a DC metro cop on duty who was beaten to a brain injury, dragged out of the Capitol, then shot with his own taser which in turn triggered a cardiac arrest (which he thankfully survived).
How is he served by justice when the individuals who assaulted him were among those pardoned?

I would have like to have seen at least those individuals excluded from the pardon and maybe re-prosecuted if there is a concern they were unfairly handled.
I could get behind a stretch case that storming and vandalizing the building was some symbolic form of speech, but it shouldn't be acceptable to extend that argument to physical assault, especially law enforcement officers.

"but it shouldn't be acceptable to extend that argument to physical assault, especially law enforcement officers."

That is the crux of so many having such an extreme reaction to the blanket pardons.

Xan wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2025 8:49 am Apart from the particulars of these cases, plea bargains in general are in my opinion corrupt. Throw 8 lifetimes sentences at somebody and then offer them a slap on the wrist if they plead guilty. The practice should be abolished.

It's the only way for our "justice" system to barely function.

I'm all with you in the ideal world. But, unfortunately, that is NOT the world that all live in.

Also, from direct personal experience.

Don't know if among all I've self-disclosed here that I'd ever prior disclosed this one.

When I was 21 I was charged with a felony. I was 100% innocent as two vice squad police blatantly lied in their report. In my righteous idealism I refused to have any $$$$ spent on a private lawyer and, instead, relied upon various public defenders.

I had that felony charge hanging over my head for nearly 2 1/2 years, which meant that during that time I dutifully honestly answered all those job application questions regarding if you had ever been charged with a crime (I don't think those are asked any more?).

My day in court finally arrived where I'd been looking forward to looking in the eyes of those vice police and challenging them in their lies while in court.

However, just before going into court my lawyer informed me of a deal that had been worked out for me. I asked her if I disclosed in court who was really guilty of the felony if that person could be charged. She said yes. Since this was a good friend I was not going to do that so I accepted the deal.

However, in the end I received justice by the judge deciding upon something that was eons better than the deal I'd agreed upon going in.

Many, many years later I found out about this regarding my lawyer!

https://www.upi.com/Archives/1982/09/28 ... 402033600/
Ex public defender weds convict

She acted quite bizarrely while in court with me. In the midst of me telling the judge what really happened (other than my friend's involvement) she said to me, "You'd better show up or you are going to blow it!" Was that unsettling! Then after the judge gave me the justice I'd no longer been expecting she just stormed off. That was my last contact or knowledge of her until finding out her own legal issues.

Xan wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2025 8:49 am Apart from the particulars of these cases, plea bargains in general are in my opinion corrupt. Throw 8 lifetimes sentences at somebody and then offer them a slap on the wrist if they plead guilty. The practice should be abolished.

If the practice were abolished, are you proposing that every single case go through the entire process of a trial and sentencing?

glennds wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2025 9:52 am

Xan wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2025 8:49 am Apart from the particulars of these cases, plea bargains in general are in my opinion corrupt. Throw 8 lifetimes sentences at somebody and then offer them a slap on the wrist if they plead guilty. The practice should be abolished.

If the practice were abolished, are you proposing that every single case go through the entire process of a trial and sentencing?

What could be the alternative if no plea bargains?

glennds wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2025 9:52 am

Xan wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2025 8:49 am Apart from the particulars of these cases, plea bargains in general are in my opinion corrupt. Throw 8 lifetimes sentences at somebody and then offer them a slap on the wrist if they plead guilty. The practice should be abolished.

If the practice were abolished, are you proposing that every single case go through the entire process of a trial and sentencing?

Isn't trial by jury something of a bedrock principle?

Bedrock principles shouldn't be subject to "oh if you're actually going to make us go through all the trouble then you're REALLY in for it".

Xan wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2025 10:47 am

glennds wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2025 9:52 am

Xan wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2025 8:49 am Apart from the particulars of these cases, plea bargains in general are in my opinion corrupt. Throw 8 lifetimes sentences at somebody and then offer them a slap on the wrist if they plead guilty. The practice should be abolished.

If the practice were abolished, are you proposing that every single case go through the entire process of a trial and sentencing?

Isn't trial by jury something of a bedrock principle?

Bedrock principles shouldn't be subject to "oh if you're actually going to make us go through all the trouble then you're REALLY in for it".

Evidently not as my "evidence" will show in the next post.

What is the United States breakdown between trials by judge or jury compared to plea bargains?

The vast majority of criminal cases in the United States are resolved through plea bargains rather than trials. This trend has significant implications for the justice system and how criminal cases are processed.

## Plea Bargains vs. Trials

According to recent data, plea bargains account for an overwhelming majority of criminal case resolutions:

- Over 90% of state criminal cases end in plea bargains[8][9]
- 97% of federal criminal cases are resolved through plea bargaining[5][9]

This means that only a small percentage of cases actually go to trial, whether before a judge or jury:

- Approximately 2% of federal criminal defendants went to trial in 2018[7]
- Less than 10% of state criminal cases result in trials[8]

## Breakdown of Trial Types

For the small fraction of cases that do go to trial, jury trials are far more common than bench trials (trials decided by a judge):

- In federal criminal cases that went to trial in 2018:
- 88% were jury trials
- 12% were bench trials[7]

## Outcomes of Different Trial Types

Interestingly, defendants who opt for bench trials tend to have better outcomes than those who choose jury trials:

- In federal criminal cases that went to trial:
- 38% of defendants in bench trials were acquitted
- 14% of defendants in jury trials were acquitted[7]

However, it's important to note that bench trials represent a very small and potentially unrepresentative sample of cases[2].

## Reasons for High Plea Bargain Rates

Several factors contribute to the prevalence of plea bargains:

1. **Efficiency**: Plea bargains allow prosecutors to handle large case volumes and reduce court backlogs[8].
2. **Resource constraints**: Many defendants lack the resources necessary for a full trial[4].
3. **Certainty**: Plea bargains offer a more predictable outcome compared to the uncertainty of a trial[5].
4. **Incentives**: Defendants often receive reduced charges or sentences in exchange for pleading guilty[6].

While plea bargaining has become a cornerstone of the U.S. criminal justice system, it remains a subject of debate. Critics argue that it may pressure innocent defendants to plead guilty or circumvent important procedural protections[9]. Proponents, on the other hand, view it as a necessary tool for managing an overburdened court system[10].

Citations:
[1] https://www.ncsc.org/newsroom/at-the-ce ... ent-survey
[2] https://law.stackexchange.com/questions ... -where-def
[3] https://www.ncsc-jurystudies.org/__data ... ec_sum.pdf
[4] https://bja.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xycku ... ummary.pdf
[5] https://stfrancislaw.com/blog/whats-a-p ... ce-system/
[6] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/plea_bargain
[7] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads ... nd-guilty/
[8] https://judicature.duke.edu/articles/pl ... or-unjust/
[9] https://www.vera.org/publications/in-th ... bargaining
[10] https://www.justia.com/criminal/plea-bargains/
[11] https://www.law.umich.edu/facultyhome/m ... rends.aspx
[12] https://www.uslegalsupport.com/blog/ben ... ury-trial/
[13] https://www.courtstatistics.org/__data/ ... System.pdf
[14] https://www.judges.org/wp-content/uploa ... Trials.pdf
[15] https://judicature.duke.edu/articles/be ... ivil-jury/
[16] https://www.ncsc-jurystudies.org/__data ... _FINAL.pdf
[17] https://www.americanbar.org/groups/publ ... uryselect/
[18] https://www.courtstatistics.org/__data/ ... Juries.pdf
[19] https://www.injusticewatch.org/criminal ... als-study/
[20] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6762157/
[21] https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/looki ... s-9346132/
[22] https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/cbjtsc05.pdf
[23] https://www.bu.edu/bulawreview/files/2020/09/ORTMAN.pdf
[24] https://innocenceproject.org/guilty-ple ... e-decline/
[25] https://www.cato.org/cato-courses/crimi ... bargaining
[26] https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-libra ... ssary-evil
[27] https://www.fairtrials.org/campaigns/plea-bargaining/
[28] https://www.theregreview.org/2024/05/14 ... r-no-deal/
[29] https://www.justice.gov/usao/justice-101/pleabargaining
[30] https://www.bestlawyers.com/article/ple ... arges/5289
[31] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plea_barg ... ted_States
[32] https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanew ... ask-force/
[33] https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/facscholar/862/
[34] https://microeconomicinsights.org/barga ... otiations/
[35] https://judicature.duke.edu/articles/go ... it-matter/
[36] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juries_in ... ted_States
[37] https://discoveringjustice.org/trial-by ... t-justice/
[38] https://www.mololamken.com/knowledge-Wh ... by-a-Judge
[39] https://vera-institute.files.svdcdn.com ... aining.pdf
[40] https://home.fau.edu/cboudreaux/web/JEF ... ersion.pdf

---
Answer from Perplexity: pplx.ai/share

Xan wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2025 10:47 am

glennds wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2025 9:52 am

Xan wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2025 8:49 am Apart from the particulars of these cases, plea bargains in general are in my opinion corrupt. Throw 8 lifetimes sentences at somebody and then offer them a slap on the wrist if they plead guilty. The practice should be abolished.

If the practice were abolished, are you proposing that every single case go through the entire process of a trial and sentencing?

Isn't trial by jury something of a bedrock principle?

Bedrock principles shouldn't be subject to "oh if you're actually going to make us go through all the trouble then you're REALLY in for it".

It's more than a bedrock principle, trial by jury is a Constitutional right.

But like all Constitutional rights, it can be waived by the holder of the right.
There are arguments for and against plea bargains. At one time, the system shared your view against them. They became more widely adopted in the 1960s due to the features of risk mitigation and reduction of the logistical burdens of trying cases. Think of cases where the defendant is basically dead to rights (caught on camera, DNA evidence, multiple independent eyewitnesses). In cases like that, it can be appealing to take a lighter sentence as a form of reward in exchange for subjecting everyone involved to a trial that will end up in a guilty verdict anyway.

Risk mitigation is always appealing to attorneys who are trying to save their client from a worse outcome at trial. Yes, you might get a better outcome, but you also might get a worse outcome (do you feel lucky?).

The logistics are a big part. The courts are clogged with cases. Imagine the cost of rounding up a jury, going through selection, organizing a trial, putting on a prosecution and defense, court reporters. Voluntary plea bargains are intended to reduce that burden.
The accused always retains the right to refuse an offer and demand a jury trial even it it means they are also taking the risk of a harsher sentence.

BTW, the harsher sentence is not supposed to be retribution for refusing a plea deal. The judge is aware of plea bargains because the court has to approve them, but the jury are never made aware of what has transpired in terms of plea negotiations, if any.
The reason the sentence after a guilty verdict will usually be harsher is because the plea deal involved a lighter sentence as a form of reward. It's basically a negotiation, and good legal representation is also a big factor.

If think it we totally abolished plea deals the volume of trials would go up by more than 800%. Statistically over 90% of criminal cases end in plea bargains.

Anyone sharing your opinion ought to simply refuse to enter into a plea bargain in their own case (and at their own risk).

But abolishing the practice altogether would mean we'll need more courts, more judges, more attorneys, and more tax dollars.

Xan wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2025 8:56 am But also, the world wouldn't be notified when you started spending your gold.

True, but couldn’t bitcoin be spent online at least semi-anonyously?
What was it Smith wrote on the previous page? That something has “woken up” but cannot be definitively linked to Ross U.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... mp-pardon/

Opinion
I was a Jan. 6 juror. What I learned surprised me.
Trump’s pardons of virtually all of the Jan. 6 rioters left me dejected. Am I safe?
Yesterday at 7:45 a.m. EST

The government laid out its case, just like it had laid out hundreds of other Jan. 6 cases before. When it was Johnatakis’s turn to cross-examine witnesses, he didn’t ask questions. Rather, he asked for forgiveness. The judge — a Ronald Reagan appointee — reprimanded Johnatakis many times. It was all incredibly awkward.
The government rested its case after two and a half days of testimony. The jury approached the deliberation process with the utmost seriousness, and we talked through the questions we had. I was impressed that my fellow jurors were resistant to making a snap judgment even though the evidence against the defendant was overwhelming. In video after damning video, Johnatakis boasted that he “organized a push up to the Capitol” and that the Capitol was “stormed and taken” and that “it wasn’t antifa who broke in; we did. I was on the front line.” The government more than proved its case, and we the jury rendered the only possible verdict: guilty.

All but four Jan. 6 defendants have been found guilty. The Jan. 6 cases really were open and shut. The evidence of criminal behavior was undeniable and lock-tight. Law and order prevailed, and we could all go home knowing justice was served. Weeks after the verdict, I received a letter from the judge thanking me for my service as jury foreperson. He wrote: “Without good citizens like you, we could not fairly administer justice. Thank you for your dedicated and conscientious service on this jury.” The letter made me feel as though what I and my fellow jurors did was important and necessary. We had performed citizenship; we were fair and impartial, and that counted for something.

Except then, on Jan. 20, 2025, President Donald Trump pardoned virtually all of the roughly 1,500 Jan. 6 defendants and shredded the thoughtful deliberations of countless D.C. juries. The Justice Department has since fired dozens of federal prosecutors who handled Capitol riot cases. More recently, Trump said he would fire FBI agents who worked on the cases, claiming they were corrupt. It’s a post-insurrection purge of people who were just doing their jobs.

Now, there is talk of defendants trying to extract financial compensation for their “wrongful” imprisonment and going after law enforcement, prosecutors and judges who sent them to prison. Will their anger extend to the regular citizens who served as jurors? Should I be worried for my safety because I faithfully performed my civic duty? This is not how our justice system is supposed to work.



During the course of our reporting, Hanna flew to Seattle to visit with Taylor Johnatakis’s wife after he was sent to prison. Marie Johnatakis, a mother of five, was gracious and kind. Her voice was honeyed and feminine. Hanna characterized her like a sort of gentle fawn. When Hanna nervously told Marie that I was one of the jurors who convicted her husband, Marie’s response was surprising. She said:
“We went to the sentencing, and I watched the judge up there playing his role and the prosecution doing their role. I just felt a lot of compassion toward them all, because everybody is playing the part that they have been asked to play, including your partner. And I think that we all just do our best.”
And she was right — we were all just doing our best. She had the grace to see that. I hope that the rest of the country can see that, too.

glennds wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2025 12:42 pm

But abolishing the practice altogether would mean we'll need more courts, more judges, more attorneys, and more tax dollars.

It would also mean that for all practical purposes, only legitimate charges would be brought. That seems like a good thing.

Maybe plea bargaining should carry a requirement that specious charges were not threatened.