Plea Agreement and Release Process: New Business

Can the sentencing agreement concluded by the defendant in criminal proceedings affect the procedural fate of other defendants who did not enter into such an agreement on sentencing?

It was said that in a new high-profile business case Some colleagues have publicly claimed that the crime has been proven because there are already defendants who have signed separate sentences for the crime money laundering.

This thesis is undeniably adventurous and it compromised my legal credit to analyze it strengths and weaknesses. Forces? He doesn’t have them.

By putting it like this, in this way, it encourages me to present deficiencies or legal violations of this paragraph.

To begin with, I would like to point out that the decision to enter into a penalty agreement is a matter that is the sole responsibility of the person who decides to do so. She and no one else makes the decision to accept, for whatever reason, a penalty agreement. On the other hand, this penalty agreement has the character of a contract and is subject to analysis with regard to object, consent and cause.

With regard to the cause, the legality of the same is assumed in every contract, that is, contracts, agreements or conventions are considered to have been concluded on the basis of a legal reason.

It is also necessary to remember, as a question dogmatic criminal procedurethat the criminal claim of the prosecutor, as a representative Public ministry, in against several defendants, it does not lose its extremely personal character in relation to each defendant just by celebrating those agreements.

This means that for the defendant entity who entered into the penalty agreement, for him and him alone, yes the criminal claim is exhausted, it passes to be an independent criminal claim filed against those defendants who did not celebrate or did not accept sentencing agreements.

In simple words, in nothing, not at allthe aforementioned agreements may affect the existence of a criminal claim against other defendants after the criminal proceedings.

In such a way that considering that as a fact itself sign an agreement on penalties, can conclude that a criminal offense has been admitted or proven, this becomes gross procedural ignorance and shows such a point of view that the assumptions of the criminal procedure are ignored, which are based on a correct and legal reading with the principle of the defendant’s state of innocence and his right to a fair trial in which, respecting all his constitutional and legal rights, freedoms and guaranteesa trial or process is conducted in which, basically, the constitutional clause on the inviolability of the defense in the trial is respected.

Given the acquittal of defendants who did not accept plea agreements, would that entail a procedural contradiction? Not at all, because the one who accepted the penalty agreement, for his part, simply simplified the process for himself, but such procedural behavior could not affect the situation of others who decided to do so. complete criminal proceedings, that is, the fulfillment of all phases thereof.

There would be other reasons, strict legality, to connote this flawed thesis, and, it must be said, it is painful that those who support it are, unfortunately, lawyers who deal with law of criminal and criminal proceedings, they do not know the basic of these important branches of the legal encyclopedia.

Without omitting other procedural extremes, there is expressly no question of the defense’s right to personally examine protected witnesses. eye
“Protected witnesses” in no way means that they are not may appear at the hearing or oral argument on the eve of the trial taking place, but that it is their physical integrity, not their mentalbecause from the moment they decided to be considered protected witnesses, these people knew they had to be subjected procedural supervision of lawyers defense

This will no doubt lead to cancellation constitutional character and profile zero process in its own matrix. God bless the country!