The West Virginia Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a man's guilty plea could be withdrawn because prosecutors withheld DNA evidence indicating he was innocent. The decision is a victory for criminal defendants and reform advocates, and could have huge implications that will likely have influence beyond the state line. According to the New York Times, "The West Virginia justices have provided the clearest decision yet on what has been an ambiguous, but important, question about the constitutional rights of criminal defendants."
Right now, the Brady rule requires prosecutors in criminal trials to hand over to the defense any exculpatory evidence and information—in other words, any evidence that could exonerate or likely exonerate the defendants. Obviously, being entitled to evidence of one’s innocence is one of the most important protections for defendants in the criminal system. But it has not yet been established whether prosecutors have to turn over exculpatory evidence at the plea bargain stage. State and federal courts have implied different things at different times, and the Supreme Court hasn't ruled on the issue.
The importance of the plea bargaining process is not accurately reflected in its informal and unregulated nature. After all, punishment and sanctions are being decided and the defendant is still being punished, even if it’s outside of the courtroom. And, for most defendants, the plea bargain stage is all that matters. After all, 97 percent of federal cases and 94 percent of state cases end in plea bargains.
The court's ruling granted the appeal of Joseph Buffey who, at 19, was arrested for a number of burglaries that happened around the time that an elderly woman was robbed and raped. Prosecutors tried to pin the rape and robbery on him too, although he maintained from the beginning that he was innocent. But his lawyers and the prosecutor pressured him to plea, telling him that he would very likely be convicted and receive a longer sentence if he went to trial. He decided to plea to robbery and rape and was sentenced to 70 years in prison.
But, according to the Times:
[As] the plea bargain was negotiated, the prosecutors withheld information about an initial DNA test of the rape kit, which found unidentified samples but no DNA from Mr. Buffey. Had it disclosed the results, the court said, Mr. Buffey would not have pleaded guilty and probably would not have been convicted at trial.
The defendant, the court found, “repeatedly requested the results of DNA testing, was incorrectly informed that such testing was not yet complete, and was presented with a time-limited plea offer that he accepted upon advice of counsel.”
The prosecution has continued to justify such behavior, “maintaining that the DNA evidence did not in itself prove that Mr. Buffey was innocent and suggest[ing] that he may have worn a condom during the rape, even though the victim said she had been assaulted by a single man who did not wear a condom.” But the court sided with Buffey, concluding that the withholding of evidence was a violation of his due process rights.
The murky waters of plea bargaining tend to get less attention from criminal justice reform advocates, in part because when a defendant pleas guilty, the assumption is that he is guilty. But many defendants are like Buffey—innocent, but in a no-win situation. Prosecutors threaten ratcheted-up charges if the defendant takes the case to trial. And while they may be innocent, innocence does not ensure vindication in a courtroom. Often, even innocent defendants still pick the lighter sentence. (For more on this, check out Jed Rakoff's piece from the New York Review of Books, titled "Why Innocent People Plead Guilty.")
A process that determines the sentences of more than 90 percent of the people coming through the criminal system should be monitored and regulated. The West Virginia Supreme Court has made important strides towards improving the process. Let’s hope it catches on elsewhere.