Considering Plea Agreements

When John first reached out to me, he was grappling with an incredibly challenging life situation. Under investigation by the Department of Justice (DOJ) for allegations tied to a bankruptcy case, he described feeling overwhelmed by the complexities of the legal system. Prosecutors haven't charged him yet. But he's clearly a target, because the prosecutors have been working with John's defense attorney to come up with a plea agreement.

Understanding a Plea Agreement  

A plea agreement, often referred to as a plea bargain, is a legal arrangement between a defendant and a prosecutor. Through this agreement, the defendant agrees to plead guilty to certain charges in exchange for a concession, such as reduced charges, lighter sentencing, or the dismissal of other charges. It is a common resolution in the legal system, offering potential benefits to both parties.

For the defendant, a plea agreement can bring predictability and reduce the risk of harsher penalties that might arise from a trial. For the legal system, it can alleviate backlogged courts and conserve resources.

Entering into a plea agreement requires careful consideration. People facing charges should fully understand the terms of the agreement, the rights they are waiving, and the long-term consequences such a decision may carry. Seeking experienced legal counsel is essential to navigating these negotiations and ensuring the best possible outcome in what is often a very difficult and emotional process.

John didn't ask for legal advice—I’m not a lawyer—but he sought clarity, insight, and most importantly, a way to think strategically about his next steps.  

His story reminded me of my own experience during those early days of facing federal charges. I made many bad decisions during that phase. I didn't understand the system, or the opportunity costs that came with every decision, and I paid a heavy price—as evidenced by the 26 years that I served.

Had I understood more about the magnitude of problems that accompany a criminal charge in federal court, I could have made more informed decisions. Instead, I lived in denial.

Each person has a responsibility to learn and to consider all factors. The more a person understands about the journey ahead, the more effectively a person can plan. With the right mindset and a clear plan, it’s possible to regain control, mitigate damage, and build a better future.  

Socratic Questions  

I listened as John told me the challenges he faced. Then I asked some Socratic questions that I hoped would help him define success. Through Prison Professors, we write about the importance of making decisions through the proper framework. The following article offers a framework that anyone can use as they contemplate tough decisions:

• Straight-A Guide

From questions I asked, I learned that John does not think the prosecutors have convened a grand jury.

Prosecutors empower a grand jury to investigate potential criminal conduct, and they ask for a formal charge, known as an indictment. The grand jury’s role is to review evidence the prosecutor presents and decide if there is sufficient probable cause to proceed to trial. Grand jury proceedings are typically conducted in private, and jurors are sworn to secrecy. Understanding the function of a grand jury provides crucial clarity when facing complex decisions or navigating the criminal justice system.

If John chooses to reject a plea agreement, it's likely the prosecutor will convene a grand jury and seek an indictment. Typically, the earlier a person settles a case with the federal government, the more favorable the sanction. Yet if a person chooses to accept a plea agreement, the person will forfeit certain rights.

John faces a critical decision: should he aim for the lowest possible sanction or take the risk of going all in? Choosing to go all in allows him to preserve his right to a trial. If he chooses to go to trial, John should expect the prosecutors to use an abundance of resources to prove their case to the jury. If the jury convicts him, the prosecutor might push for a harsher penalty, and the judge may be less likely to show leniency during sentencing. To make the best decision in this dilemma, John should consider many variables and factors.

If he chooses to accept a plea agreement, on the other hand, the judge will order a "change of plea" hearing. During a change of plea hearing in federal court, before accepting a guilty plea, the judge will typically ask the defendant a series of questions to ensure that the plea is voluntary, informed, and supported by a factual basis. These questions often include:

1. Do you understand the charges against you?  

The judge ensures that the defendant is fully aware of the specific charges they are pleading guilty to.  

2. Do you understand the potential penalties?  

This includes the maximum and minimum penalties, fines, and any other consequences associated with the charge.

3. Have you had enough time to discuss your case with your attorney?  

The judge confirms that the defendant has had the opportunity to consult with legal counsel to understand their rights and options.

4. Are you satisfied with the representation provided by your attorney?  

This ensures the defendant feels adequately represented in their legal proceedings.

5. Are you entering this plea voluntarily and of your own free will?  

The judge needs to establish that the defendant is not being coerced, threatened, or improperly influenced.

6. Do you understand that you are waiving certain constitutional rights by pleading guilty?  

The judge explains that by pleading guilty, the defendant is giving up rights such as the right to a jury trial, the right to confront witnesses, and the right to remain silent.

7. Has anyone made promises or agreements beyond what is stated in the plea agreement?  

This ensures that no undisclosed deals or guarantees have influenced the decision.

8. Do you agree with the facts as presented by the prosecution?  

The judge asks whether the defendant agrees with the factual basis of the plea as outlined by the prosecutor.

The judge will review John's answers to each question before determining whether he truly grasps the seriousness of the decision. If the judge concludes that John understands and is entering the plea voluntarily, the judge accepts the plea and makes a final ruling on guilt. At that moment, the decision is settled. John will have waived his right to require prosecutors to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime was committed.

We concluded our conversation by outlining some critical next steps for John. I told him I'd write a simple lesson plan and challenged him to work through the lesson. I asked him to make sure that he tries to take all variables into his calculus, and weigh those variables. The more thought he puts into the matter, the more effectively he can make a decision. One thing to consider is the risk.

Considering Risk:

The judge will consider the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines when imposing sentence. It's a starting point. For federal fraud cases, the sentencing guideline range for fraud (such as wire fraud, mail fraud, or bankruptcy fraud), for a person who does not have a prior criminal history (Criminal History Category I), and a loss amount between $1,000,000 and $2,000,000, the guidelines offer the following for the judge to consider a step-by-step calculation:

1. Base Offense Level (U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1):

• Fraud starts with a Base Offense Level of 7.

2. Loss Amount Enhancement (§ 2B1.1(b)(1)):

• Loss between $1,000,000 and $2,000,000 adds +14 levels.

Total Offense Level (before adjustments):

• Base Level: 7
• Loss Enhancement: +14
• Total Offense Level: 21

Note:
This calculation assumes no additional adjustments for role in the offense, acceptance of responsibility, obstruction, victim-related adjustments, or other enhancements/reductions that could modify the guideline range. Typically, people who accept responsibility (by pleading guilty) receive a reduction of two or three levels, which would significantly reduce the sentencing range.

According to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines Table, this scenario would bring a range of between 37 and 46 months. The statute, however, provides a much broader range.

Statutory Maximum Sentence for Mail Fraud:  

The statutory maximum sentence for mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1341 is 20 years imprisonment. However, this maximum can increase to 30 years if the crime involves a financial institution or a federal disaster related to emergency relief.

Understanding the Difference Between a Statutory Maximum and Sentencing Guidelines:  

The statutory maximum represents the absolute highest sentence that the judge can impose for a specific offense under the statute. It serves as a legal limit beyond which no further punishment can be applied, regardless of circumstances. Sentencing guidelines, on the other hand, provide a recommended range of punishment based on specific factors such as the offense level, criminal history, and other adjustments laid out in the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.

While the statutory maximum emphasizes the boundaries defined by law, guidelines aim to ensure consistency and fairness in sentencing by considering the unique aspects of each case. Courts often start with the guidelines to determine appropriate sentences but remain bound by the statutory maximum if the calculated guideline exceeds its limit.

SWOT Analysis:

John agreed to spend time working to define his best possible outcome. This clarity might serve as a compass to help him with every decision he had to make moving forward.  No one can change the past. But we all can work to sow seeds for a better future. Yet every decision we make will come with consequences, and our decisions may put us on a path that leads us closer to success, or further away from success.

To move forward, he might want to consider a mental SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) analysis for his situation. He needed to identify:

• Strengths: He has to think about all the resources available to him today, knowing that those resources may change, based upon the decision he makes.  
• Weaknesses: He needs to understand the costs that will come with his decision. For example, if he chooses to exercise his rights by proceeding through trial, he'll have to contend with higher financial costs, continued mental anguish, and lessen the potency of mitigation efforts through trial.  
• Opportunities: What opportunities exist to mitigate risks and demonstrate accountability?  
• Threats: What evidence lurks out there that prosecutors can use to prove their case? How will their decisions influence John's life?  

I tasked John with reviewing the lesson and considering all factors. He should develop a better understanding of federal sentencing guidelines, researching the range of penalties tied to his allegations, and brainstorming a mitigation plan. By being prepared and informed, John could make better decisions and reduce his risk of adverse outcomes.  Some questions he might consider follow:

• What does your version of success look like in this situation?
• What costs do you anticipate if you proceed through trial versus accepting a plea agreement?
• How would you describe your level of trust in your lawyer’s professional expertise to guide these critical decisions?
• What does your research tell you about the costs of a trial penalty, with regard to sentencing?
• What can you control right now to reduce the risk you're facing?  
• How can you use this situation as a catalyst for personal growth and long-term success?  
• If you pursue a plea agreement, what steps can you take to influence your eligibility for administrative relief once you're in prison?

The questions above are only a start, a prompt for John to shift his perspective. To the extent that he can define what success means for him, and the variables that may influence prospects for success, he may be able to restore confidence and work toward the best possible outcome.  

Lessons for You  

John’s story offers crucial lessons for anyone facing adversity or a crisis:

1. Clarity is Key  

Defining what success looks like is the foundation for every decision. Without a clear goal, it’s easy to be reactive rather than strategic.  

2. Every Decision Has a Cost  

Deciding on litigation, mitigation, or even negotiating with the DOJ comes with trade-offs. Understanding these costs, both tangible and intangible, allows for more informed choices.  

3. Mindset Shapes Outcomes  

How you approach a crisis, whether as a victim or as someone ready to take responsibility, often determines the trajectory of the outcome. Resilience, discipline, and strategic thinking are powerful tools.  

Accessing resources, building a support system, and seeking guidance from people who’ve walked similar paths can make all the difference. If you’re facing a similar challenge, whether within the justice system or in life more broadly, I encourage you to reflect on these questions:

• What does success look like for me?  
• What actions can I take today to move closer to that vision?  
• Am I prepared to make sacrifices for the long-term goal?  
• Am I communicating effectively with those who can support me through this?  

Success is always within reach, but it begins with clarity, courage, and a willingness to take action. If you’ve found yourself in a position like John’s, we encourage you to use our free resources at PrisonProfessors.org. We publish every day with hopes of helping members of our community make more informed decisions. Learn how to grow stronger and build resilience to create a better path forward.

Remember, there are always more opportunities in the future than in the past.

‍