The judicial system moves at glacial speed, and it isn’t inclined to accept that it’s flawed. Its shortcomings are most glaring with criminal cases.
If a convicted person is able to come upon new evidence that wasn’t available during the trial, no matter how significant the evidence may be, the process of getting a new trial is slow and doubtful. There’s no guarantee a new trial will be granted.
The first step is for the trial court judge to just agree to a hearing on whether a new trial is warranted. And judges have the discretion to deny that hearing. Shouldn’t it be mandatory that a hearing on new evidence be granted?
Former Ohio Supreme Court Justice Michael Donnelly has been an advocate for improving the system. He questions why prosecutors oppose a mandatory hearing. “They should welcome legislation like this because if the claim doesn’t have any merit, they can demonstrate that at the hearing. So it’s not something that should be feared.”
Justice Donnelly also advocates a more transparent approach to plea agreements. Generally, these discussions are held with the attorneys and the judge in the judge’s chambers. No record is made, and the judge is not bound by anything agreed to by the attorneys. So, while the attorneys may think they reached an agreement on sentencing and that the judge is onboard with their agreement, the judge can award something completely different at the sentencing hearing.
Perhaps worse is the disparity that exists in sentencing. “With the same lawyers and the same facts, you can conduct a sentencing hearing and walk out with an outcome of probation,” Justice Donnelly explains. “You could take those same lawyers and walk 15 feet across the hall in front of another judge, do it again, and have an outcome of 30, 40, 50 years in prison. And that’s just a fact.”