[ back ]
If You Plea Bargain for a Murder Sentence, Can You Get Out of it
(by Week of Dec. 17, 2008 - December 17, 2008)
In June of 2003, Henry Buston was enraged that his best friend was having sex with his former girlfriend. So he went to his truck, took out a shotgun and pistol and shot them both to death. He was charged with aggravated murder. The punishment is imprisonment for life without possibility of parole.
Henry argued that although he wasn’t insane, he was in a fugue state such that he couldn’t act rationally, so his punishment should be less. The State agreed to allow Henry to plead guilty to second degree murder. The minimum punishment for 2nd degree is life with a minimum of 20 years, but the court can raise the penalty to a longer minimum and life without parole. The judge would decide the penalty.
In 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that juries, rather than judges, must find any fact that warranted a more severe penalty. It ruled that a jury trial was required “[T]o guard against a spirit of oppression and tyranny on the part of rulers” and juries were “the great bulwark of [our] civil and political liberties.”
When Henry plead guilty, the Vermont Supreme Court had not yet decided whether juries must also determine facts for a lesser penalty. He knew that could be the case. When he was sentenced, the Judge concluded Henry’s mental condition didn’t warrant a lesser penalty. He was sentenced to 25 years to life. In a later case, the Vermont Court ruled that a jury must determine both aggravating and mitigating facts beyond a reasonable doubt.
So Henry appealed. He argued that although he had agreed to have a judge determine his mental state, the constitution required a jury to do so. But the Court disagreed. The question, Chief Justice Reiber wrote was “whether the trial court’s decision to adopt a plea agreement that imperfectly predicted the outcome of a then unknown future case in an unsettled area of the law was a miscarriage of justice?” “No,” he ruled; Henry was carefully questioned by the trial judge, he had competent counsel, he knew what he was doing, and made a tactical decision for his own benefit. Accordingly, the Court ruled that the procedure did not seriously undermine the integrity, fairness, and public reputation of the judiciary. Therefore, Henry was not entitled to have a jury determine his mental state.
If you make a tactical decision, don’t bet on having it overturned if the law changes later. State v. Buston 2008 Vt. 134.
See www.Cheneycolumn.com
[ back ]
