In criminal cases defendants often
bring motions to suppress evidence (exclude evidence from trial)
based on arguments that the evidence was seized in violation of
defendant's constitutional rights. These motions typically argue
that evidence was seized in violation of constitutional rights
against unreasonable search and seizure or a confession was obtained
in violation of defendant's right against self incrimination. The
motion is filed in the trial court before the case goes to trial.
Previously, if the trial judge denied
the motion to suppress, the defendant had a very difficult choice:
either take the case to trial and preserve the right to appeal this
ruling or accept a favorable plea agreement from the District
Attorney which means that the defendant pleads guilty and gives up
the right to appeal the ruling on the motion to dismiss. The
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court just changed this by allowing
the Defendant to make a conditional plea of guilty.
A conditional plea of guilty allows a
defendant to plead guilty to take advantage of an offer of settlement
from the District Attorney and still have the right to appeal the
trial judge's ruling on the motion to suppress. If the appeals court
rules that the evidence should have been suppressed, then the guilty
plea will be vacated and the defendant will be able to have his case
go to trial or have new discussions with the District Attorney for a
different plea agreement. In many cases, without the evidence that
can not be introduced the District Attorney may choose to drop the
prosecution and dismiss the criminal case.
Allowing conditional guilty pleas is
likely to cause more defendants to plead guilty thereby reducing the
cost of defending the case for defendants and reducing the number of
cases that go to trial. It is expected that the judicial system will
save money and resources as well. If you have a criminal case you
should consult an experienced criminal
defense attorney who can give advice on conditional guilty pleas.
