FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W841426420> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W841426420 startingPage "119" @default.
• W841426420 abstract "Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION II. BACKGROUND A. Plea Agreements 1. Origins 2. Wide-spread Usage Today 3. Benefits to Parties: The Typical Plea Bargain B. Appeal Waivers 1. Appeal Waivers in Federal Court 2. Appeal Waivers in Michigan C. Effect of Breach on Enforceability of Plea Agreements 1. What Constitutes a Breach? 2. The Effect of Breach on the Enforceability of Appeal Waivers 3. Breach Objected to by Counsel 4. Breach Un-objected to a. Plain-error Review b. Collateral Attack-Ineffective Assistance of Counsel III. ANALYSIS: THE PRUDENCE OF A CONTRACT BASED APPROACH WITH HEIGHTENED SCRUTINY. A. Mistake B. Duress VI. CONCLUSION I. INTRODUCTION Since its inception, plea bargaining has been an integral part of the criminal justice system. Even though plea bargaining was a part of the process before the 1920s, alcohol prohibition was the harbinger for the rise of plea bargaining. The juxtaposition of ever-increasing federal laws and insufficient government resources that never compensated for the increase of prosecutions certain to follow, created the perfect storm for plea bargaining. While integral from its inception, plea bargaining today has become indispensable. Defendants, for varying reasons, decide to forego their constitutional protections for trial and agree to enter a plea of guilty. This decision is met with a promise from the Typically, the government will agree to request leniency in sentencing or drop charges and in exchange the defendant agrees to forego a trial and waive his right to appeal, among other things. Problems arise when one of the parties either partially performs or wholly fails to perform. This Note highlights the origins of plea agreements, their wide-spread usage today, what bargaining tools the parties typically use, and what recourse is available to criminal defendants who find themselves in a position where they have not received what they believed they had bargained for. While this position is far from novel, in the face of a clear circuit split, this Note advocates for a contracts-based approach to the enforceability of plea agreements. This approach would provide for uniformity and predictability of decisions, which is currently lacking. II. BACKGROUND A. Plea Agreements 1. Origins Our has not always been, as the Supreme Court opined in 2012, a of pleas, not a of trials. (2) The pieces that have created the present state of our criminal justice were put in place long ago. According to one author, the true age of the discovery of plea bargaining dates back to the 1920s and 1930s. (3) Early scholars that confronted plea bargaining did so with hostility. (4) While subsequent case law would have likely quelled many of the fears they had regarding the plea bargaining process, these early scholars saw plea agreements as an undercover system that was dangerous, both to the rights of individuals and to orderly, stable government. (5) Even in this early era, plea bargaining in the city of Chicago in 1926 accounted for 98.5% of felony prosecutions. (6) In searching for an explanation for the prevalence of plea agreements, it was surmised that it was due in large part to the increased caseloads of prosecutors. (7) This conclusion was echoed by the infamous Wickersham Commission report in 1931. (8) This report placed much of the onus on the propagation of alcohol prohibition since federal prosecutions increased exponentially following the law's passage. (9) In the 1970s, a new wave of scholars approached the topic of plea bargaining. These new scholars were not content to simply build on and concede that the prevalence of plea bargaining was due to heavy caseloads. One of the more noteworthy theories during this time was laid out by John Langbein. …" @default.
• W841426420 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W841426420 creator A5041718699 @default.
• W841426420 date "2013-09-22" @default.
• W841426420 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W841426420 title "The Search for Consistency: The Interpretation of Plea Agreements and Appeal Waivers in the Face of Breach" @default.
• W841426420 hasPublicationYear "2013" @default.
• W841426420 type Work @default.
• W841426420 sameAs 841426420 @default.
• W841426420 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W841426420 countsByYear W8414264202014 @default.
• W841426420 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W841426420 hasAuthorship W841426420A5041718699 @default.
• W841426420 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W841426420 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W841426420 hasConcept C190253527 @default.
• W841426420 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W841426420 hasConcept C2777886440 @default.
• W841426420 hasConcept C2778449503 @default.
• W841426420 hasConceptScore W841426420C144024400 @default.
• W841426420 hasConceptScore W841426420C17744445 @default.
• W841426420 hasConceptScore W841426420C190253527 @default.
• W841426420 hasConceptScore W841426420C199539241 @default.
• W841426420 hasConceptScore W841426420C2777886440 @default.
• W841426420 hasConceptScore W841426420C2778449503 @default.
• W841426420 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W841426420 hasLocation W8414264201 @default.
• W841426420 hasOpenAccess W841426420 @default.
• W841426420 hasPrimaryLocation W8414264201 @default.
• W841426420 hasRelatedWork W1727647119 @default.
• W841426420 hasRelatedWork W1855770024 @default.
• W841426420 hasRelatedWork W2120800647 @default.
• W841426420 hasRelatedWork W2158177382 @default.
• W841426420 hasRelatedWork W2256650149 @default.
• W841426420 hasRelatedWork W2271102103 @default.
• W841426420 hasRelatedWork W2290330135 @default.
• W841426420 hasRelatedWork W2335185926 @default.
• W841426420 hasRelatedWork W2606462894 @default.
• W841426420 hasRelatedWork W2902164452 @default.
• W841426420 hasRelatedWork W3035933385 @default.
• W841426420 hasRelatedWork W3121648355 @default.
• W841426420 hasRelatedWork W3121774637 @default.
• W841426420 hasRelatedWork W3123522263 @default.
• W841426420 hasRelatedWork W3125295944 @default.
• W841426420 hasRelatedWork W3125688686 @default.
• W841426420 hasRelatedWork W3157691562 @default.
• W841426420 hasRelatedWork W3177416652 @default.
• W841426420 hasRelatedWork W1866330351 @default.
• W841426420 hasRelatedWork W3122096031 @default.
• W841426420 hasVolume "15" @default.
• W841426420 isParatext "false" @default.
• W841426420 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W841426420 magId "841426420" @default.
• W841426420 workType "article" @default.