Should we agree to this plea deal? 12 Answers as of December 15, 2011

They do have proof. THEY HAVE A WITNESS. Now the jury may not believe the witness but that's a real throw the dice kind of deal. What does his lawyer say? That's the guy to ask.

A firearm enhancement under pc 12022.53 carries a ten year minimum. Therefore it sounds as I'd they have already dropped the gun enhancement.

If he should take the deal or not depends on the evidence that the state has against him. He should not take any deal without consulting an attorney. That attorney should review the evidence and advise him of how to proceed. However, if your husband knows that they can prove all the counts, the deal is a good one.

Would need a lot more than what is provided here to really make a comment or suggestion other than talk to the attorney. As to the "no proof" regarding the gun, the witness / victim saying that there was a gun is evidence. Robbery with a gun is worth 15 years for just one event. Two more robberies would add at least 2 more years.

It's impossible to give you good advice without knowing a whole lot more about the strengths /weaknesses of the case. A lot of cases turn on nothing more than a witness's testimony with no other corroborating evidence.

There's no way any lawyer could tell you if this is a good deal or not based on the information here. A full evaluation of the case is necessary before one can put a plea agreement into context and evaluate it. I assume they have some evidence or the prosecution would not have filed charges. For example, someone who witnessed the event testifying that he saw a gun, or what looked like a gun, is evidence. It may not be compelling evidence sufficient to get a conviction, but it is evidence. The robbery issue is more complicated and really depends on the facts. Each is a violent felony under the "Three Strikes" laws in California even though they came from one case. Personally, I hate to recommend that a client accept a deal for 2 strikes unless it is a compromise from a significant potential exposure, such as life or 20+ years. In the situation above, 3 robberies + a possession charge (this is troublesome the way you phrase it), he would be looking at 7 years 8 months @ 85%. The offer isn't much of a benefit when compared to this; he might want to take his chances at trial. My bigger problem is that if the robberies were enhanced by the gun use he could be looking at as much as 16 years 8 months more years on top of that! (+10 years for gun use during a robbery, depending, again, on the facts of the case. Take my word for it that under the sentencing laws, one doesn't just multiply 10 x 3 , so it comes out to 16y8m). What's more, did he simply possess the gun during the course of the robberies, or did he use it? Under the 10-20-Life gun laws, depending on the nature of the situation, he could be looking at life. Then, 4 years and 2 strikes would be a good deal to consider. He should have a good criminal defense lawyer helping him out in this situation.

Anything is open to negotiation and he can admit he had a gun for purposes of a plea agreement, even if the DA can't prove it. You always have the option of going to trial and letting a jury decide.

Actually, live eye witness testimony that your husband possessed a gun is enough proof to support the criminal charges. However, the lack of video and other evidence may weaken the case.

There are not enough facts supplied here, and without seeing all of the police reports it is difficult to say whether or not this is a 'good deal.' Your husband should really discuss this offer with his attorney and listen carefully to the advice given. This does not mean that if the attorney recommends the deal it should be taken, but is a question of balancing the deal offered with what the worst case would be if found guilty of all counts and allegations, together with the possibility (however small) that a jury might find Not Guilty. Oh, by the way, 'just a witness who saw the gun' is often enough evidence if the jury believes it.

A witness is all they need. They don't necessarily need physical proof of a weapon. Your attorney should be doing his/her own investigation to see what they do have. This is a question that should be answered by his attorney. If you don't trust his current attorney, then perhaps you should consider hiring someone else.