Papillion Assault Case... how does this work?

[djc311]

So can someone tell me how you can plead down to first degree assault when you've actually murdered someone by shooting them through a pillow in bed? I know the forum is generally a positive environment... but I guess I'm not sure I understand how it goes from first degree murder to just assault when someone shoots another person in the head.

Please explain

https://www.ketv.com/article/nebraska-p ... t/40690871

[Original]

My understanding with prosecution is that the prosecutor looks at cases, generally tries to understand what the case is going to cost, what the chance of conviction is, and then makes a determination on where to go. I'd guess in this case that they figured, case is going to cost 250k to try, and if the alleged shooter had no resources, going to cost the public defender's office a certain amount, going to result in a sentence of 50-to-life years (for a ~50 y/o woman) and then looks at, well, if I offer this first degree assault, they can plead guilty to, sentenced to 10-15, doesn't cost as much, doesn't tie up the court or prosecutor etc...

I could be wrong, but that's what I understand from reading articles about this.

[bigredmed1]

Sounds about right. Class one felony trials are huge money. Start at $250k and most are atleast double that. The DAs figure a plea is an admission of guilt that is not appealable and he gets 10-15. He will probably serve most of it and realistically would only serve 20 for a murder. So he gets half to two thirds of the time and doesn't cost the taxpayers as much.

[nativeomahan]

My understanding with prosecution is that the prosecutor looks at cases, generally tries to understand what the case is going to cost, what the chance of conviction is, and then makes a determination on where to go. I'd guess in this case that they figured, case is going to cost 250k to try, and if the alleged shooter had no resources, going to cost the public defender's office a certain amount, going to result in a sentence of 50-to-life years (for a ~50 y/o woman) and then looks at, well, if I offer this first degree assault, they can plead guilty to, sentenced to 10-15, doesn't cost as much, doesn't tie up the court or prosecutor etc...

I could be wrong, but that's what I understand from reading articles about this.

As a retired former prosecutor maybe I can shed some light here. First, I have absolutely no familiarity with the specific facts or even the case being referred to in this thread. After I took off my white prosecutor’s hat I purposely tried to zone out cases like this.
When a prosecutor is handed a file he or she reads the reports, and if necessary asks for more information/investigation from the relevant law enforcement officers/agencies. The more serious the charges, the more time and attention (and financial resources) the case will get. Homicide cases typically aren’t all that complicated, compared with arson cases, investigations of financial fraud, and other white collar crimes. If law enforcement is having difficulty identifying a suspect, or making the case for an arrest, then those cases involve a lot of manpower, overtime, etc, but that falls on the law enforcement agency and not on the prosecutor’s office.
In a simple person X shot/stabbed/strangled/assaulted and killed person Y case things move pretty smoothly, once a pathologist can conclude on a cause of death, and the dots linking the suspect to the victim can be connected. Complications occur when the 2 people were engaged in a mutual fight, which is often the case. Sometimes the death is ruled justified after thorough investigation, for example. We’ve all seen that happen.
Prosecutors sometimes must deal with uncooperative or missing witnesses. Sometimes co conspirators must be “flipped” to testify against the primary suspect. Those are complexities that may force a prosecutor to consider a reduction in charges in order to secure a conviction.
If a suspect in a 1st or 2nd degree murder case would end up getting essentially the same amount of time in prison by pleading guilty to a lesser charge, such as felony 1st degree Assault, then the prosecutor will likely consult with family members of the victims, to discuss options. Victims and family members cannot legally dictate what a prosecutor does, but a prosecutor is legally required to consult with the victim/family before deciding how to proceed in serious cases. A guilty plea eliminates chances of a not guilty verdict, and greatly diminishes chances of a successful appeal. It also likely results in a much quicker resolution of the case. And yes, it will save the county money, by eliminating costs of jury service, court security, flying witnesses in from out of state, feeding and housing them, etc. Another fact of life is that court dockets are often saturated with cases, and taking a serious felony case to trial means that potentially numerous other cases will lose their court slots and be delayed, which has a ripple effect of weakening the chances those cases will have positive outcomes. Then there are the judges, who are under pressure from the supreme court case progression standards to not let cases fester on court dockets longer than set amounts of time. Judges are also human (really!) and are happy to have more time to write opinions and perform their other duties pertaining to the rest of their cases.
But…money is seldom if ever a controlling factor in pleading cases! If need be a prosecutor’s office can effectively demand more funding from their county board of commissioners, as the law requires counties to provide all funds necessary to a prosecutor’s office, upon being provided with sufficient documentation to justify the expenses requested.
I hope that helps. Nothing is ever as simple as it seems from the outside looking in.

[Original]

My understanding with prosecution is that the prosecutor looks at cases, generally tries to understand what the case is going to cost, what the chance of conviction is, and then makes a determination on where to go. I'd guess in this case that they figured, case is going to cost 250k to try, and if the alleged shooter had no resources, going to cost the public defender's office a certain amount, going to result in a sentence of 50-to-life years (for a ~50 y/o woman) and then looks at, well, if I offer this first degree assault, they can plead guilty to, sentenced to 10-15, doesn't cost as much, doesn't tie up the court or prosecutor etc...

I could be wrong, but that's what I understand from reading articles about this.

As a retired former prosecutor maybe I can shed some light here. First, I have absolutely no familiarity with the specific facts or even the case being referred to in this thread. After I took off my white prosecutor’s hat I purposely tried to zone out cases like this.
When a prosecutor is handed a file he or she reads the reports, and if necessary asks for more information/investigation from the relevant law enforcement officers/agencies. The more serious the charges, the more time and attention (and financial resources) the case will get. Homicide cases typically aren’t all that complicated, compared with arson cases, investigations of financial fraud, and other white collar crimes. If law enforcement is having difficulty identifying a suspect, or making the case for an arrest, then those cases involve a lot of manpower, overtime, etc, but that falls on the law enforcement agency and not on the prosecutor’s office.
In a simple person X shot/stabbed/strangled/assaulted and killed person Y case things move pretty smoothly, once a pathologist can conclude on a cause of death, and the dots linking the suspect to the victim can be connected. Complications occur when the 2 people were engaged in a mutual fight, which is often the case. Sometimes the death is ruled justified after thorough investigation, for example. We’ve all seen that happen.
Prosecutors sometimes must deal with uncooperative or missing witnesses. Sometimes co conspirators must be “flipped” to testify against the primary suspect. Those are complexities that may force a prosecutor to consider a reduction in charges in order to secure a conviction.
If a suspect in a 1st or 2nd degree murder case would end up getting essentially the same amount of time in prison by pleading guilty to a lesser charge, such as felony 1st degree Assault, then the prosecutor will likely consult with family members of the victims, to discuss options. Victims and family members cannot legally dictate what a prosecutor does, but a prosecutor is legally required to consult with the victim/family before deciding how to proceed in serious cases. A guilty plea eliminates chances of a not guilty verdict, and greatly diminishes chances of a successful appeal. It also likely results in a much quicker resolution of the case. And yes, it will save the county money, by eliminating costs of jury service, court security, flying witnesses in from out of state, feeding and housing them, etc. Another fact of life is that court dockets are often saturated with cases, and taking a serious felony case to trial means that potentially numerous other cases will lose their court slots and be delayed, which has a ripple effect of weakening the chances those cases will have positive outcomes. Then there are the judges, who are under pressure from the supreme court case progression standards to not let cases fester on court dockets longer than set amounts of time. Judges are also human (really!) and are happy to have more time to write opinions and perform their other duties pertaining to the rest of their cases.
But…money is seldom if ever a controlling factor in pleading cases! If need be a prosecutor’s office can effectively demand more funding from their county board of commissioners, as the law requires counties to provide all funds necessary to a prosecutor’s office, upon being provided with sufficient documentation to justify the expenses requested.
I hope that helps. Nothing is ever as simple as it seems from the outside looking in.

That is extremely interesting, thank you for taking the time to type it up! As someone with no actual experience with the justice system, I am glad to be corrected.

It sounds like you are saying money isn't a major factor, but there are other resources and logistics that have to be balanced, along with political/personal considerations (judges) too? So it might not be money, but a prosecutor may say, "If I can get this person to plead guilty, it will still serve justice and allow justice to proceed in other areas, so I'm going to take that route" due to resource constraints? That makes a lot of sense, and sounds like the way to think about things in the future.