Sergio Robles, a diagnosed schizophrenic, shot and killed a Pasadena, California, police officer during a 2009 shootout. Robles, who would have likely faced the death penalty under ordinary circumstances, plead guilty to murder in exchange for a 40 year prison sentence. The plea agreement came after two years of investigation and three separate mental evaluations to determine Robles’ state of mind. Two doctors (for the defense) determined he was legally insane during the shooting; the doctor hired by the Prosecutor’s office determined he was not legally insane. The prosecutor agreed to the plea deal after deciding that putting dueling experts in front of a trial jury could have been too risky. Had the jurors sided with the two doctors who determined Robles was insane, he may have been found not guilty by reason of insanity.
The Robles case highlights the controversy surrounding guilty pleas. On the one side, his plea guaranteed a conviction and he was sentenced to a lengthy prison term. On the other side, the slain officer’s family and colleagues were not happy with the plea deal. At the sentencing hearing, Officer Robles’ widow said, “I hope your life is so miserable that you look forward to death.“
Should plea negotiations be allowed in cases like this?
What, if any, restrictions would you place on prosecutors entering plea agreements?