07/04/2026
I do not take criminal law cases these days, but I trained in that area and have done some prosecution and defense work in my career. What constantly frustrates me in every election cycle is the misuse of legal action in campaign rhetoric where one candidate or the other has faced criminal charges or civil lawsuits. People don’t understand plea deals and sentencing. Not sure the precise stats, but the vast majority of all legal matters settle prior to trial, and well over 90% of all criminal cases settle with a plea deal. If they didn’t, the courts would be even more overwhelmed than they already are… the justice system would cease to function. Settlement prior to trial is baked into the system, trials are the exception, not the rule. Further, even when there is a guilty verdict in a jury trial, just because a crime could have a sentence of, say, 20 years, seldom is the maximum sentence imposed. Similarly, in a civil trial, a jury judgement is sometimes modified by the court or changed on appeal. The underlying idea is that the judgement needs to fit the unique circumstances of each case—and though that is supposed to mean “the punishment fits the crime,” this includes the options available for corrections (overcrowded prisons mean many nonviolent offenders who are not a major danger to the public will get probation, not jail time). What people don’t understand is that yes, sometimes a settlement or a plea deal is risk mitigation—an agreement that something is owed (to society/victims or to the plaintiff), but each side gives a little to get closure. Other times, it is not really an admission of wrongdoing at all, it is that everyone is exhausted and they just want it over. In civil cases, a settlement may be cheaper for the defendant than the expense of going to trial, even if they win. In criminal law, the judge will not accept a guilty plea unless the person admits to what acts underlaid their guilty plea (except an “Alford plea” or “no contest“ plea, where they do not admit guilt, but merely acknowledge that the evidence against them would probably result in a finding of guilt at trial.) At that point, if the judge accepts the plea deal (they don’t always have to, but it’s too complicated to explain all that here) double jeopardy has usuall attached, so the admission clears the deck for that set of charges. In civil cases, a settlement often includes language that no one is admitting to wrongdoing, and may include language that no one will discuss the matter publicly—which may mean only the initial complaint with the or allegations is all that’s public… and those allegations may or may not be true. In other words, a settlement or guilty plea doesn’t mean that any or all of the original allegations are proven. But, it also doesn’t necessarily mean that the original allegations didn’t happen. The law is complicated and cannot be reduced to clickbait headlines. So don’t get all worked up over clickbait. Look at what actually happened.
