Saturday, December 20, 2014

It seems the DA's Office has not learned its lesson re: Cruz waivers

Maybe they should all be let go.

5 comments:

  1. what are you talking about? please clarify...

    ReplyDelete
  2. They know. And they need to stop it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Quite often defendants will plead guilty and agree to a specific sentence or a cap (for example, if the maximum sentence is 4 years, the defendant may plead for a cap of 2 years, eliminating the 4 year max as a sentencing possibility). A Cruz waiver means that if the defendant is out of custody and fails to appear at the sentencing hearing, the guilty plea remains in effect but the judge can sentence the defendant to the maximum, even though the plea bargain was for a lower term. Absent a Cruz waiver, the defendant is entitled to the bargained-for outcome even with an FTA. So that's what it is, my question is, what's going on?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Cruz waivers are incorporated into the standardized plea forms. All you need to do is have the knucklehead initial a box. It isn't rocket surgery.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Ok, fascinating. Some details are being left out, as follows. Many of these plea deals are happening while the Defendant is in jail. The Defendant then pleads guilty. They are then asking for something alot more than a Cruz Waiver. 11:15 is correct that a Cruz Waiver is actually nothing more than waiving your right to get your plea bargain if the Defendant violates the agreement. If a Defendant was out of custody and was pleading to go to prison then the Judge could and should remand right there. A Cruz Waiver in those situations would allow someone to get more prison time for delaying the remand until sentencing which is 20 court days later. Those situations are rare. Most people who are looking at prison now are in custody. They can't afford Bail, they can't afford a private attorney. What is controversial, and what is far more common is that those folks who are in jail, and are not entitled to be released prior to sentencing as they have already had and lost their bail hearing are demanding that the bail decision be set aside, that they are released on their own recognizance sometimes for up to 3-4 weeks knowing they are going to prison and some but not all are committing crimes. A few like Jason Warren committed unspeakably heinous crimes. This is happening daily. Some like Warren make the papers. Where somebody knows they are going to prison, they know their life is f%%#!?$'d and thus whatever they do it doesn't matter. That policy is ridiculous. Gallegos has allowed it to continue. He did not ban it after Jason Warren committed his crimes. He did not ban it after he said Jason Warren, "you deserve to die" because you abused my ultra-leniency policy on Cruz waivers where literally I am facilitating people committing crimes. That policy can and must change. I would say at 12:01 pm on 1/5/15 is a good time to assert that change. Otherwise, it is literally a game of Roulette as when something horrendous will happen. Right now I guarantee you there are people currently walking around free, they have bench warrants for their arrest and they are free to commit more crimes. Let's hope the new administration changes this dangerous and terrible policy. That will actually entail having DDA's apply a new policy and following their new leader. Management that allowed this to repeatedly happen is still there. Will they listen to that person or will they listen to their new leader and the phantom leadership team? Lives only hang in the balance.

    ReplyDelete

Comments are open, but moderated, for the time-being. Good luck.