Man gets 40 years in jail after rejecting plea deal that would have freed him immediately (1 Viewer)

Optimus Prime

Subscribing Member
VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Joined
Jul 18, 1998
Messages
7,768
Reaction score
8,101
Online
I see no reason why you wouldn't take this deal.

Even if like in A Few Good Men you believed you did nothing wrong so you refuse to accept a plea deal, because you refuse you say that you're guilty I still say you take the deal

Out immediately versus 40 years in jail seems like an easy choice to make
========================================================

A Montgomery County man accused of assaulting a public servant and threatening to kill police officers could have walked free Monday. However, after refusing a plea bargain, he was convicted and hit with a 40-year sentence.

Jurors in the 9th District Court of Judge Phil Grant convicted Raymond Lindsey Jr., 46, last week of Assault on a Public Servant and Retaliation. His attorney said he already had been in jail 19 months and would have been released with "time served."....................

Man gets 40 years in jail after rejecting plea deal that would have freed him immediately
 

WhoDatPhan78

Definitely not part of the deep state.
Joined
Oct 14, 2008
Messages
9,524
Reaction score
18,507
Offline
I see no reason why you wouldn't take this deal.

Even if like in A Few Good Men you believed you did nothing wrong so you refuse to accept a plea deal, because you refuse you say that you're guilty I still say you take the deal

Out immediately versus 40 years in jail seems like an easy choice to make
========================================================

A Montgomery County man accused of assaulting a public servant and threatening to kill police officers could have walked free Monday. However, after refusing a plea bargain, he was convicted and hit with a 40-year sentence.

Jurors in the 9th District Court of Judge Phil Grant convicted Raymond Lindsey Jr., 46, last week of Assault on a Public Servant and Retaliation. His attorney said he already had been in jail 19 months and would have been released with "time served."....................

Man gets 40 years in jail after rejecting plea deal that would have freed him immediately

40 years seems like an unreasonable sentence for these crimes. I suspect the sentence is going to be reduced on appeal.
 

LOONEY

gulf war vet
Joined
Aug 3, 2011
Messages
4,854
Reaction score
3,479
Age
52
Location
NorthShore
Offline
I witnessed something like this firsthand while in court. a suspect we arrested for cutting someone's eye out with a broken glass during a fight was offered a 3 year deal by the Da. The suspect refused the Judge even tried to get the suspect to take the deal which she refused, the case went forward and the jury found the suspect guilty , she ended up with if i recall 10 years. sometimes its better to swollow your pride and just move on.
 

Det. Brees

E tan e epi tas
Joined
Jul 21, 2002
Messages
8,198
Reaction score
3,560
Age
50
Offline
I had a case like this several years ago when I worked burglary. If they plead guilty to a misdemeanor They get probation and pay restitution. They demanded a trial, laughed and cut up in court. Due to their criminal backgrounds all four received a different sentence .
1. 5 years to serve.
2. 7 years to serve
3. 12 years to serve
4. 15 years to serve.
All over being mad about a cell phone and breaking into the 5th girls home and trashing it.
 

JimEverett

More than 15K posts served!
Joined
Mar 18, 2001
Messages
24,979
Reaction score
7,834
Offline
The disparity is ridiculous and shows why many view the criminal courts as an assembly line of plea deals.

I mean even if your client is innocent,you and have good proof he is innocent you still recommend he take the deal.
It's almost criminal.
 

St. Chris

Pro-Bowler
VIP Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2001
Messages
984
Reaction score
1,650
Age
55
Location
Lafayette, LA
Offline
I had this happen to a client of mine. He was actually charged with armed robbery. The DA agreed to reduce it to a lesser offense and plea to probation. I really pushed my client to take the plea because of the risk of taking it to trial and losing (10-99 years sentencing range, no probation, parole or suspension of sentence).

To this day, I do not know if my client was actually guilty or not. I considered it to risky to take to trial. My client spoke to his parents about it, and they ended up hiring another attorney who agreed to take it to trial.

He was found guilty and sentenced to 30 years in prison. He was 23 at the time of his sentencing. He should be around 48 when he gets out.

This case always causes me mixed emotions when I think about it. I truly feel bad for him for gambling and losing, especially since I am not convinced of his guilt. At the same time, it feels wrong advising someone to take a plea when they might not be guilty, but in the end, I guess I did the right thing because he would have ended up in much better position.
 

Grandadmiral

Infinite Power is da ****
Joined
Aug 7, 2002
Messages
21,691
Reaction score
12,608
Age
45
Online
I had this happen to a client of mine. He was actually charged with armed robbery. The DA agreed to reduce it to a lesser offense and plea to probation. I really pushed my client to take the plea because of the risk of taking it to trial and losing (10-99 years sentencing range, no probation, parole or suspension of sentence).

To this day, I do not know if my client was actually guilty or not. I considered it to risky to take to trial. My client spoke to his parents about it, and they ended up hiring another attorney who agreed to take it to trial.

He was found guilty and sentenced to 30 years in prison. He was 23 at the time of his sentencing. He should be around 48 when he gets out.

This case always causes me mixed emotions when I think about it. I truly feel bad for him for gambling and losing, especially since I am not convinced of his guilt. At the same time, it feels wrong advising someone to take a plea when they might not be guilty, but in the end, I guess I did the right thing because he would have ended up in much better position.
I get what you are saying, but if I was an attorney, I would never have a problem with talking my client into taking a deal, whether he/she was guilty or not. A plea deal does two things in my opinion: in saves the taxpayers for having to pay for a lengthy trial and all that comes with it (witnesses, experts, tests, models, etc.) and it possibly prevents victims from having to relive the events they went through.

If my client feels otherwise and want to go to trial, that's fine. I'll do my damnedest to get them off, but the risk is on them IMO.
 

St. Chris

Pro-Bowler
VIP Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2001
Messages
984
Reaction score
1,650
Age
55
Location
Lafayette, LA
Offline
I get what you are saying, but if I was an attorney, I would never have a problem with talking my client into taking a deal, whether he/she was guilty or not. A plea deal does two things in my opinion: in saves the taxpayers for having to pay for a lengthy trial and all that comes with it (witnesses, experts, tests, models, etc.) and it possibly prevents victims from having to relive the events they went through.

If my client feels otherwise and want to go to trial, that's fine. I'll do my damnedest to get them off, but the risk is on them IMO.

I understand convincing my clients to take pleas when they may not be guilty. It does bother me sometimes if I believe they are not guilty. But sometimes, we just don't have the evidence or there are no holes to show in the state's case to convince a jury or judge of not guilty.

But you are still telling your client to lie to the court and to everybody by saying, I did it and that seems fundamentally wrong.

But the two issues in your statement that I bolded will almost never factor in to what I, as a defense attorney, advise my client to do as far as a plea agreement. Whether or not it costs more for the state is of absolutely no relevance to me or my client. It might factor in to a DA's decision, but I have to say that is not likely. But it should never factor into a defendant's decision.

I believe that in the overwhelmingly majority of cases (as much as 99%) the cost of the trial is not a factor for the DA either. The cost of trying cases as opposed to plea bargains is really just a discussion of overall policy as to why plea bargains are necessary. That and the overcrowding of the dockets if you never plea bargain any cases. But I cannot remember a specific case ever where as part of the plea bargain process, the DA and I discussed the cost of a trial.

As far as the victim having to relive the experience, that would most likely not factor into my decision or my advice. If my client is not guilty, then it should not matter at all. If my client is guilty, then I can tell you, my client probably doesn't care if the victim has to relive the experience. It really is more of a factor for the DA and balancing that with whether that victim is going to be a believable witness and whether that victim is going to be cooperative witness.
 

St. Chris

Pro-Bowler
VIP Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2001
Messages
984
Reaction score
1,650
Age
55
Location
Lafayette, LA
Offline
40 years seems like an unreasonable sentence for these crimes. I suspect the sentence is going to be reduced on appeal.
I wouldn't bet on it. If you read the article, it looks like he has at least 2 prior felony convictions and this one is in Texas. I'd be surprised if the sentence gets reduced.
 

la. champ1

ALL-MADDEN TEAM
Joined
Jan 15, 2012
Messages
2,772
Reaction score
2,057
Offline
40 years seems like an unreasonable sentence for these crimes. I suspect the sentence is going to be reduced on appeal.
From what it sounds like, he was convicted by a jury of his peers, had prior felony convictions, and got multiple billed. That is the reason you see lengthy sentences involving certain crimes like that. That falls on him. Lawyer likely told him to take the deal because the evidence was not in his favor. He chose otherwise and has to live with the result of that decision, as well as his prior decisions that likely resulted in other felony convictions which allowed him to be multiple billed.
 

noser222

ALL-MADDEN TEAM
Joined
Feb 23, 2015
Messages
2,049
Reaction score
1,768
Offline
I understand convincing my clients to take pleas when they may not be guilty. It does bother me sometimes if I believe they are not guilty. But sometimes, we just don't have the evidence or there are no holes to show in the state's case to convince a jury or judge of not guilty.
That sounds like the opposite of innocent until proven guilty.
 

St. Chris

Pro-Bowler
VIP Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2001
Messages
984
Reaction score
1,650
Age
55
Location
Lafayette, LA
Offline
That sounds like the opposite of innocent until proven guilty.
If it sounds that way, I probably didn't state it right. What I mean is when reviewing a file or preparing for trial, always in my mind is IF the state introduces evidence which would convince a judge or jury to convict my client, how do I punch holes in their case or what evidence can I introduce to prove my client not guilty.

I'm not saying I am required to do this, but if the state establishes their case, I better have something prepared.

So, innocent until the state introduces evidence which would prove guilt unless I can provide a defense for my client.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)



Headlines

Top Bottom