Vermont Notice Of Plea Agreement

1. The prosecutor reminds the court that prior to requesting the negotiated plea, reasonable efforts have been made to speak with the victim. In Sharp v. Missouri, 35 the prosecutor, during the negotiation of the pleadings, had agreed to remain silent on the subject of the conviction. One of the victims, who was also the mother of the other three victims, was asked to make a statement in court, pursuant to Missouri Code 557.041, in which she contained an application for a maximum sentence. The court sentenced the accused to a total of 16 years on four counts. Following the conviction, the accused filed an application to withdraw his guilty verdict on the basis that the victims sought the maximum sentence in their testimony, in violation of the terms of the plea, that the prosecutor would not make a recommendation on the accused`s sentence. The court dismissed the application and concluded that no evidence had been presented to prove that the states had agreed to remain silent on the conviction, including for the victim, and that nothing in the explanation of the victim`s testimony was supposed to be the views of the prosecutor, the state or others other than himself and their families. For prosecutors and judges, familiarity with the functioning of victims` laws and consultations ensures that these laws are properly implemented. The formulation of the victims` perspective on a proposed plea agreement in court in the absence of victims encourages a prosecutor to actively listen to a victim`s concerns and objections, rather than simply notifying or informing a victim after an agreement has been reached. At the same time, the prohibition of judges from accepting a plea, unless the opinions of the victims have been made public and the reporting obligations have been respected, will promote the enforcement of the rights of victims of crime. The Vermont Supreme Court`s ruling was similar.36 In that case, the court dismissed an appeal agreement as too lenient after hearing victim impact statements.

The court found that prosecutors who questioned victims about the consequences of the crime during the criminal proceedings were not in breach of oral arguments, although the victims sought a harsher sentence during the interrogation, compared to what was agreed in the plea recommendation. While victims were allowed to make statements in oral arguments, the right was generally granted in two phases of the criminal proceedings: (1) during discussion with the prosecutor during oral arguments and (2) during oral or written speech before the introduction of the plea.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized by admin. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.