Will plead guilty for food

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2008-08-07 11:41am

Defendant trades murder plea for KFC, pizza

PORTLAND, Oregon (AP) -- A New York man who pleaded guilty to murder in Oregon in exchange for buckets of fried chicken will get calzones and pizza to go with his life sentence.

Tremayne Durham, 33, of New York City, admitted last month that he fatally shot Adam Calbreath, 39, of Gresham, in June 2006. Durham wanted to sell ice cream and ordered an $18,000 truck from an Oregon company. He later changed his mind, but the company wouldn't provide a refund.

The would-be ice cream man came to Oregon and killed Calbreath, a former employee of the company, while looking for its owner, authorities said.

Durham agreed to plead guilty to murder -- but only if he could get a break from jail food. The judge agreed and granted Durham a feast of KFC chicken, Popeye's chicken, mashed potatoes, coleslaw, carrot cake and ice cream.

After Wednesday's sentencing, Durham was to get the rest of the deal -- calzones, lasagna, pizza and ice cream, his defense attorney confirmed. They will pay the tab.

Durham also got married Wednesday in a civil ceremony at the Portland courthouse. The wedding to Vanessa Davis, 48, also of New York City, was not part of the plea deal that will give Durham a chance for parole after 30 years.

Deputy District Attorney Josh Lamborn said Multnomah County Judge Eric Bergstrom made the right call in allowing the unusual plea agreement because it saved the expense of a trial and possible appeals.

Bounty · Post by **Bounty** » 2008-08-07 11:51am

I never understood why defendants are allowed to bargain for a lesser sentence. If a man is willing to plea guilty, and actively bargaining for it, isn't that an admission of guilt? What is the use of this system when an innocent defendant can simply go to trial and be cleared?

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2008-08-07 11:53am

Bounty wrote:I never understood why defendants are allowed to bargain for a lesser sentence. If a man is willing to plea guilty, and actively bargaining for it, isn't that an admission of guilt? What is the use of this system when an innocent defendant can simply go to trial and be cleared?

Basically, incentive to save the cost of a trial, particularly if said guilty party has information useful for netting more. It's generally instrumental in any kind of organized crime cases, as I understand it.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2008-08-07 12:06pm

Bounty wrote:I never understood why defendants are allowed to bargain for a lesser sentence. If a man is willing to plea guilty, and actively bargaining for it, isn't that an admission of guilt? What is the use of this system when an innocent defendant can simply go to trial and be cleared?

Because trials are fucking expensive. If you can get a guilty defendant to cop to it, then it's in the interests of the state to do so.

Death from the Sea · Post by **Death from the Sea** » 2008-08-07 12:12pm

I can't tell you how many cases the DA's office plea's out in Harris County (Texas), but it is well over 50%. It was explained to me as a two fold reason 1save money/time in trial costs 2the guilty plea is another tick in the win column for that attorney. Sadly this seems to be true. In Harris County you have to call the DA's office for anything above a city charge and explain the circumstances and they will decide if we are to arrest and charge them. So many times they decide off of if it is a winnable case for them or not. I have had many cases turned down because "I just don't know that we can prove that in court, so I am going to decline charges."

But as SirNitram said they will plea bargain like that with alot of cases were you can give more information on the next biggest fish, whether it be organized crime or drug supplier or whatever.

Although I have never heard of this king of plea bargain, I wonder how long before they put this guy back on prison food... Or if anyone will try to take his food...

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2008-08-07 12:15pm

That's the other thing. If the food is part of the terms of his plea agreement, the state is required to hold up its end of the deal; if he's put back on prison food, I'm fairly certain it would invalidate his plea.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2008-08-07 12:17pm

Rogue 9 wrote:That's the other thing. If the food is part of the terms of his plea agreement, the state is required to hold up its end of the deal; if he's put back on prison food, I'm fairly certain it would invalidate his plea.

Depends on how long they agreed to provide him regular food for.

Death from the Sea · Post by **Death from the Sea** » 2008-08-07 12:17pm

Rogue 9 wrote:That's the other thing. If the food is part of the terms of his plea agreement, the state is required to hold up its end of the deal; if he's put back on prison food, I'm fairly certain it would invalidate his plea.

it is likely that he was granted that food for only so many meals before having to go back to regular prison food, my question was how long is that?

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2008-08-07 12:23pm

Bounty wrote:I never understood why defendants are allowed to bargain for a lesser sentence. If a man is willing to plea guilty, and actively bargaining for it, isn't that an admission of guilt? What is the use of this system when an innocent defendant can simply go to trial and be cleared?

We have a lot of false convictions. Sometimes an innocent person is pretty much guaranteed to go to prison if he goes to trial. Sometimes the best thing they can do for themselves is plead guilty.

So dont assume it is an admission of guilt.

Then there is the cost issue, getting information like who theri boss is, or where they hid the bodies of their other victims, things like that

Scottish Ninja · Post by **Scottish Ninja** » 2008-08-07 12:29pm

Alyrium Denryle wrote:
Bounty wrote:I never understood why defendants are allowed to bargain for a lesser sentence. If a man is willing to plea guilty, and actively bargaining for it, isn't that an admission of guilt? What is the use of this system when an innocent defendant can simply go to trial and be cleared?
We have a lot of false convictions. Sometimes an innocent person is pretty much guaranteed to go to prison if he goes to trial. Sometimes the best thing they can do for themselves is plead guilty.

So dont assume it is an admission of guilt.

It's funny, because I'm pretty sure there's a plea of No Contest for that specific situation, but I never hear about anyone using that option, probably because I'm not sure if that usually results in any leniency in sentencing, and people are simply willing to take that stain on their record for a reduced sentence.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2008-08-07 12:33pm

Scottish Ninja wrote:
Alyrium Denryle wrote:
Bounty wrote:I never understood why defendants are allowed to bargain for a lesser sentence. If a man is willing to plea guilty, and actively bargaining for it, isn't that an admission of guilt? What is the use of this system when an innocent defendant can simply go to trial and be cleared?
We have a lot of false convictions. Sometimes an innocent person is pretty much guaranteed to go to prison if he goes to trial. Sometimes the best thing they can do for themselves is plead guilty.

So dont assume it is an admission of guilt.
It's funny, because I'm pretty sure there's a plea of No Contest for that specific situation, but I never hear about anyone using that option, probably because I'm not sure if that usually results in any leniency in sentencing, and people are simply willing to take that stain on their record for a reduced sentence.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner. No contest IIRC does not admit guilt, but it does not allow you to really negotiate for a reduced charge or sentence either.

Solauren · Post by **Solauren** » 2008-08-07 12:39pm

Hey, he confessed for what comes to like, $100, instead of a very expensive trial. And he's not up for parole for about 30 years.

I'd say that's s win-win.

Maybe more jails need really crappy food. Imagine the conviction rate of people going 'Man, this food sucks! I need something real. Okay, I'll fess up, but first, here's my take - out order'

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2008-08-08 04:27am

Bounty wrote:I never understood why defendants are allowed to bargain for a lesser sentence.

Two reasons. Firstly, it saves the taxpayers the expense of a trial and frees up the district attorney's office to prosecute defendants who aren't willing to plead out. Secondly, it removes uncertainty about the jury's verdict. The district attorney may believe the defendant to be guilty but conceivably not have enough evidence to convince a jury. So the plea bargain is generally a reflection of how strong the prosecution's case is.

For example, if police improperly obtained a videotape of the suspect committing the crime, and it was excluded, the DA would be forced into a much weaker case. Since you never know which way a jury will swing on circumstantial evidence or weaker evidence, both parties may feel that pleading out is worth the gamble of avoiding a verdict not in their favor.

Beyond that, a defendant may be ignorant and feel that he's up against insurmountable odds. So he might just plead guilty. (I don't know if all states allow a defendant to plead "no contest" without admitting guilt.) There's also the need to make a distinction between two defendants charged with the same crime, one who admits his crime and the other who doesn't, but is found guilty. The one who did not admit to his crime, according to our judicial system, deserves more jail time.

Honestly, the idea of a plea bargain is pretty much a natural consequence of an adversarial system.

Bounty · Post by **Bounty** » 2008-08-08 04:39am

Honestly, the idea of a plea bargain is pretty much a natural consequence of an adversarial system.

And completely non-existent in an inquisitional system, hence my confusion about it.

It just looks like a wide-open opportunity for abuse, since the system can be manipulated so the question of the defendant's guilt becomes irrelevant. What if you can't afford more than a shit lawyer and know you won't win the trial, despite being innocent? What if two defendants share equal guilt, but one pleabargains a lesser sentence by fingering the second? Is that justice?

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2008-08-08 05:10am

What if you can't afford more than a shit lawyer and know you won't win the trial, despite being innocent?

This is a common concern as-is - there's no shortage of cynicism here about the wealthy being able to buy their way out of trouble with ultra-high-priced lawyers - but I don't see how removing plea bargaining would make it any better. As is, plea bargains usually include reduced sentences. If we removed the bargains and everyone serves more time (which is likely in the 'tough on crime' American political arena), the wrongly convicted are just going to lose harder.

What if two defendants share equal guilt, but one pleabargains a lesser sentence by fingering the second? Is that justice?

That depends very heavily on how strong the prosecution's case is; if plea bargaining ensures a conviction where it may have been uncertain previously, that may be a better alternative.

It also depends on how you define justice. Does justice demand that repentance/restitution be measured only in jail time or fines? Or can assisting the state to assure the conviction of a co-conspirator (and, in pleading out, save the state the cost of his own trial) be counted as part of the service a criminal must render to society as payment for his crime?