To some extent that’s an argument against the entire system, not just this scenario. I’d rather fix the plea deal system (and change the underlying incentive system that drives its misapplication). But to answer your question more directly, no, I don’t think it would be abused, because the people who would be victims of it aren’t the ones like this guy (or the Bannon’s and Roger Stones) who abuse it. The people who would be abused by such a law don’t have the resources to make the kind of public statement that these guys do. That’s a prerequisite for it to be abused.
It would need to exclude formal challenges and appeals, as well as speech used to recruit legal help for such challenges. But just getting away with a slap on the wrist through a plea deal then blowing it all up the moment you walk out of court? No way that should be protected.
And that’s your loophole that wealthy people will exploit to get around this. I know your intent is good, but this is just a really bad idea. Plus, it would never get past a First Amendment challenge. Nor should it. I would love it if people didn’t lie when they have megaphones, and I’m more than happy to let Twitter and other non-governmental entities take their megaphones away, but the state can’t mandate honesty. Give them that power, and they will abuse it.
Of course the plea deal system is broken, and actual guilt or innocence doesn’t actually factor in to the decision of whether to plead out a case. It is no surprise that somebody who has not had significant dealings with the criminal justice system in this country did not understand that.
Yeah no, gotta think that’s a bad idea. I’ve had a prosecutor knock a 50 in a 30 down to a 40 in a 30 (was visiting a different town, didn’t know, the sign wasn’t there but it still was speeding via state law) because I agreed to a plea deal even though I could have fought the charge on the sign not being there. It would have been reckless endangerment within a hundred yards of a school, and that was a felony with mandatory jail time at that time. When I tell the story, am I violating my plea deal by saying I don’t think it was fair and that I was wronged? Should I go to jail for a year?
So what, Roger Stone said in front of cameras that he didn’t do anything. Doesn’t matter. In the courtroom, under oath, he absolutely said he did. That’s the thing that would have stuck had he not gotten pardoned.
Did you hire a PR firm? Did you have a press conference? Did you pay for a social media campaign to help make the public think you were innocent? No? We’re not talking about regular people talking or writing with friends. We’re talking about people who get out of serious time by taking a plea deal then spinning it as something else.
Isn’t this all reparable if he gets a better lawyer? But he has to “say the words” to the judge. Only after he pleas guilty and allocutes, enumerating exactly how he broke the law(s) and is released, then can he return to being in denial, and in public say he was innocent and that he broke no law(s).
He may have a perfectly fine lawyer. I’d recommend reading the twitter thread @SheiffFatman linked above. In federal court these days, judges are reluctant to accept guilty pleas from anyone who might think they’re innocent. And the judge asks questions to ascertain that. In this case, the judge gave the defendant 60 days to think about it.
Words mean something in a courtroom, and Baked Alaska has probably been living all his adult life in a world where they don’t. He just has to learn that in a courtroom, bullshit and trôlling aren’t going to be tolerated. In 60 days, he’ll plead guilty like a good little boy and get his plea deal.
