Most Americans believe that criminal trials are about determining guilt or innocence. A jury hears evidence, deliberates, and justice is served. But that’s not how the vast majority of criminal cases actually end. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, roughly 90 to 95 percent of criminal cases are resolved through plea bargains — or as one veteran attorney prefers to call them, “negotiated pleas.”
On a recent episode of Registry Matters, hosts Andy and Larry welcomed Jerry, a lawyer with approximately 30 years of experience on both sides of the courtroom. Having served as both a prosecutor and a defense attorney, Jerry offered a uniquely candid look at how plea bargains actually function, who they benefit, and where the system breaks down. Since Jerry no longer practices criminal law, he had nothing to lose by being honest — and his insights were both illuminating and sobering.
What Is a Plea Bargain, Really?
The term “plea bargain” carries baggage. Many people hear it and assume someone is “getting a deal” — that a guilty person is escaping the full consequences of their actions. Jerry pushes back on that characterization.
“It’s a negotiated resolution to a criminal case,” he explains. “The defendant gives up certain rights in exchange for knowing the outcome. For some people, certainty about what’s going to happen is their most important value.”
That certainty is the thread running through every aspect of the plea bargaining process. For defendants, it means knowing whether they’ll face probation or prison. For victims, it means avoiding the trauma of testifying. For the government, it means conserving resources for cases that truly need a trial.
Why the System Can’t Function Without Plea Deals
One of the most striking points Jerry raised is what would happen if every defendant simply refused to negotiate. The answer? The system would collapse.
“There aren’t enough judges, prosecutors, or public defenders for every case to go to trial,” Jerry notes. If everyone refused plea deals, only about 20 cases might be resolved through the system — and those defendants would likely receive far harsher sentences than any negotiated agreement would provide.
Paradoxically, if everyone refused, the state would have to offer even better deals to clear the backlog. But defense attorneys have an ethical obligation to advise their clients based on the actual circumstances of their case — not as part of a collective strategy to crash the system.
Trials Aren’t About Guilt or Innocence
Perhaps Jerry’s most provocative insight was his assertion that trials aren’t really about guilt or innocence. “We like to think they are — that’s what we’re taught in school and what the movies show,” he says. “But trials are really about what can the state prove. What are the elements of the law?”
This distinction has profound implications. An attorney may believe their client is factually innocent, but if the state has strong evidence, the rational advice might still be to take a plea deal. “I could have a client who I believe is factually innocent,” Jerry explains, “but part of my job is to evaluate what does the state’s case look like. Can they get that conviction regardless of my client’s innocence? That’s a really tough conversation to have.”
Innocent people plead guilty all the time. They may have been held in custody for months or even years while awaiting trial. Taking a plea that offers release from jail is, as Jerry describes it, “a very rational reason” to accept a deal.
The Judge’s Role: Oversight or Rubber Stamp?
In theory, judges serve as a critical safeguard in the plea process. They’re supposed to ensure that the defendant understands the charges, the penalties, the rights being waived, and the terms of the agreement. The plea must be knowing, voluntary, and supported by a factual basis.
In practice, Jerry says, many judges treat plea acceptance as “an expedient way of getting rid of a case on their docket.” They don’t probe deeply enough into whether the defendant truly understood what they were agreeing to.
Jerry shared a remarkable story from his time as a prosecutor that illustrates the tension between judicial power and prosecutorial authority. A judge known for harsh sentencing attempted to strip a sentencing agreement from a plea deal on a low-level charge — a charge that normally carried up to seven days in jail, but for which the judge had jurisdiction to impose two years.
When the judge insisted on going to trial immediately after rejecting the plea, Jerry made a bold move: he dismissed all the charges. “Your Honor, you can’t do a trial when there’s no charges pending,” he told the court. It was, as he admits, “the kind of thing you can only do once in your career.”
The Problem of Charge Stacking
One of the most troubling aspects of the plea bargaining system is the practice of “stacking charges.” Prosecutors may add multiple charges — some with little chance of being proven — to create leverage over a defendant.
“When the state starts stacking charges, I find that unethical,” Jerry states plainly. “They’re putting charges there just for leverage over a defendant.” He places the blame not just on prosecutors but on lawmakers who write laws in ways that permit this behavior.
This practice is particularly concerning when combined with the resource imbalance between prosecution and defense. District attorneys have, as one listener put it, “the full weight of a bottomless pit of resources,” while defendants often have extremely limited funding. The incentive structure rewards conviction statistics, not justice served.
Both Sides of the Courtroom
Having worked as both prosecutor and defense attorney, Jerry sees plea bargains through a fundamentally different lens depending on which side he’s on.
As a prosecutor, the stakes were professional but not personal. “If we lose, I feel bad, but there are no tangible consequences in my life,” he admits.
As a defense attorney, the calculation changes entirely. A colleague once told him: “If the case gets dismissed, I eat steak. If my client ends up being found guilty, I still eat steak.” The lawyer’s life continues either way. But for the client, the consequences could mean decades behind bars.
“The only thing standing between my client and 50 years in prison is whether I have a good day,” Jerry reflects. That weight shapes how defense attorneys approach every negotiation.
Your ZIP Code Matters More Than You Think
One of the discussion’s most practical revelations was the dramatic sentencing disparity across jurisdictions within the same state. A fourth-degree felony for failure to register might result in probation in Bernalillo County (Albuquerque) but could lead to prison time in more conservative rural counties.
“The more conservative the area, especially when it comes to registration issues, the stronger the sentence is going to be,” Jerry confirms. But he adds an important caveat: ultra-liberal judges can be just as harsh for certain types of offenses.
Elected judges compound this problem. In rural areas, everyone knows the judge, the prosecutor, and the local police officer. A judge facing re-election may impose harsher sentences to maintain community support. Jerry described arriving at a rural courthouse where the judge was serving coffee and donuts to the jury pool, half of whom greeted the testifying officer by name. He immediately advised his client to negotiate rather than go to trial.
The Professionalization of Victimhood
In a candid closing discussion, Jerry raised concerns about what he calls the “professionalization of victimhood.” While acknowledging the importance of victims’ rights, he argues that the system sometimes incentivizes people to define themselves permanently by their victimhood — receiving attention, sympathy, and a sense of revenge.
This dynamic particularly affects parole hearings, where victims testify about the original crime. “The issue with parole is supposed to be what did you do once you got sent to prison,” Jerry argues. “But we have parole hearings where we rehash the one thing a defendant has no control over.”
Key Takeaways
- Understand your rights: If you’re facing criminal charges, ensure you have competent legal counsel who evaluates the strength of the government’s case before recommending a plea deal.
- Location matters: Sentencing outcomes vary significantly by jurisdiction. The political leanings of your county and whether judges are elected can directly impact your case.
- Fairness requires vigilance: A fair plea bargain demands informed consent, proportionate outcomes, and genuine judicial oversight — not just efficiency.