If Senator Larry Craig were convicted in New York, could he withdraw his guilty plea? 

          Well, no.  Although in New York state most criminal convictions end up being resolved by plea bargaining, that is a “bargain” that is not returnable.  Plea bargaining is when the prosecuting attorney (referred to as District Attorney) makes an offer to the criminal defendant to plead guilty either to the crime charged or to a lesser included offense, in exchange for a lighter sentence.  A plea bargain, although to many  it is considered a misnomer because very often there is no bargain, is usually the most efficient way to dispose of a criminal case.  Agreeing to a plea bargain saves the court, the attorneys and the residents time while granting the defendant control over his or her own fate.  Plea bargains also obviate the need for costly and time-consuming investigation, extensive trial preparation, and excessive use of state and local resources.  Plea bargains are typically offered in cases where the District Attorney does not  wish to proceed to trial for various reasons.  For example, often times the prosecuting attorney does not want to go to trial because of the sensitivity of the case, like the impact on the victim and/or the victim’s family.  However, their reason for choosing to offer a plea  may merely be because of the unavailability of judges/courts to actually try the case. 

          Most criminal defense attorneys take a very active role in plea bargaining, which may commence at any phase of a criminal case, from as early as the arrest up until the point of jury deliberation.  The factors usually taken into consideration, from the defense attorney’s perspective, are the strenghts and weaknesses of the case, the impact of a jury conviction would have on the client’s immigration or employment status or sometimes the political or social climate surrounding the case.   

The Courts Cover all Bases in Securing a Guilty Plea
          Defendants who plead guilty must waive three important constitutional rights—the Fifth Amendment right to self-incrimination, Sixth Amendment right to jury trial, and Sixth Amendment right to confront and cross-examine one’s accusers. The Supreme Court has determined the constitutionality of plea bargaining in Boykin v. Alabama (1969), where the Court held that the record must disclose that the defendant voluntarily and understandingly pled guilty. In fact, in Santobello v. New York (1971), the Court described plea bargaining as “an essential component of the administration of justice. Properly administered, it is to be encouraged” (p. 260).  However, even with these rulings by the highest court, there are still concerns  with coercion, false pleas, and injustice.  While others raise concerns about the excessive leniency, reduction of deterrence, and the impact of the law from plea bargaining.

          Once an individual opts for a plea bargain, whether it be to a misdemeanor or felony offense, the judge ( and sometimes the prosecuting attorney)  requires a full allocution (where the defendant is questioned on procedural and substantive issues) before the plea is accepted.  This questioning is a method used to ensure that the defendant:

1) is coherent, sober and lucid;

2)  is under no duress or influence;

3) is aware of the crime charged with and the sentence;

4) understands the constitutional rights he/she waives and

5) is satisfied with his/her counsel. 

These questions (and defendant’s responses) assures the court, and the prosecuting attorney, of the defendant’s willingness to enter the plea of guilty and understanding of so doing, minimizing any constitutional challenges  defendant may raise later.

          In New York, withdrawal of a plea of guilty is in the discretion of the trial court.  In People v. Davis (1998)   the court found that a request to withdraw a guilty plea will rarely be granted unless there is a finding of innocence, mistake or fraud that served as the basis of the plea.  A defendant’s claim of intoxication, failure to understand because of illness or innocence (even where another person claims responsibility for the crime pleaded to) will rarely serve as the basis for a withdrawal of a guilty plea.   Even where a defendant’s immigration status is at stake  (immigration status is in jeopardy even for a plea to domestic violence), which is typically the reason for such request for plea withdrawal, rarely will they be given the chance to change their plea.

          In Senator Craig’s case, the decision to withdraw his plea was based entirely on the impact of the conviction on his political career.  However, not only does he fail to make a sound argument as to why he should be able to withdraw his plea, he basically sealed his fate when he signed the Petition to Enter a Plea of Guilty.  In that affidavit he indicated that he was aware of the charges brought against him and he admitted guilt to those charges.  Therefore, his current challenge to the voluntariness of the plea or knowingness of the chages will be more than likely be unsucessful.   Had he hired an experienced criminal defense attorney, he would have been informed of this.