Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
For more than a decade as Hancock County’s prosecutor, I have seen thousands of criminal cases move through our justice system. Some are decided by a jury. Most are not.
There is a common misconception that when a prosecutor agrees to a “plea deal,” justice has somehow been discounted. That the defendant got a break, the state backed down or the public was denied the accountability it deserved.
That is simply not the case.
A plea agreement can impose substantial punishment, protect the public, provide certainty for victims and hold a defendant accountable for criminal conduct. Justice should not be measured by whether a case ends with a jury verdict. It should be measured by whether the outcome appropriately reflects the crime, the evidence and the circumstances of the case.
There certainly can be bad plea agreements. When outcomes consistently fall short of what the facts and the law demand, the public has every right to ask questions. But assuming that any case resolved by agreement represents a failure of justice fundamentally misunderstands how our criminal justice system works.
The overwhelming majority of criminal cases in America are resolved through guilty pleas. In federal court, nearly 98% of cases in fiscal year 2025 resulted in guilty pleas. More than 50 years ago, the United States Supreme Court described plea bargaining as an “essential component” of the administration of justice.
One reason is certainty.
A guilty plea produces a conviction. A jury trial, by its nature, cannot guarantee one. Trials are unpredictable. Witnesses can testify differently than expected. Evidence can be excluded. Jurors can view a case differently than prosecutors anticipate. A jury can acquit or fail to reach a unanimous verdict.
The recent Lindsay Clancy murder trial in Massachusetts is a high-profile example. After weeks of testimony and days of deliberation, the jury could not reach a unanimous verdict. That does not mean the case should have been resolved through a plea. It simply demonstrates that no jury trial, regardless of the perceived strength of the evidence, guarantees a conviction.
That certainty can be especially important for victims.
Testifying at trial can mean reliving the worst moments of a person’s life in detail, publicly and in front of strangers. An appropriate plea agreement can spare a victim from that experience while still securing a conviction and meaningful punishment. It can also bring an end to a process that otherwise may continue for years.
None of this means a plea agreement is inherently lenient.
A defendant who pleads guilty still might face years or decades in prison, restitution, probation, treatment requirements, registration, protective orders and other serious consequences. The defendant also gives up the right to trial and accepts a criminal conviction.
Every case is different.
Prosecutors must consider the evidence, seriousness of the crime, defendant’s criminal history, input from victims, potential sentence and circumstances of the case. Sometimes justice requires taking a case before a jury. Other times, justice is best served by securing a certain conviction and an appropriate sentence through an agreement.
After more than a decade as prosecutor, I have learned that justice should not be measured by whether a case ends with a jury verdict.
The better questions are whether the offender was held appropriately accountable, whether the public was protected and whether the outcome served the interests of justice.
A plea agreement is not a clearance sale on justice. When used responsibly, it is one of the tools prosecutors use to deliver it.•
__________
Eaton serves as the Hancock County prosecutor.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.