Jimmy didn't give him another chance to speak but entered the interrogation room directly. Jimmy surmised that their reluctance to defend on the grounds of innocence, preferring to deal directly with the prosecutor, was due to the incontrovertible evidence.

Regrettably, Jimmy's target wasn't the case involving the murdered vagrant; he intended to continue investigating several previous cases. Where both parties had inconsistencies in their understanding, the lawyers clearly had oversimplified thoughts. The lawyers hoped to resolve this case quickly, but it was destined not to be concluded soon.

The lawyer thought for a while outside and then also entered the interrogation room. After sitting down, he whispered a few words to Dave, and Jimmy didn't interrupt them, choosing to continue interrogating after they finished talking. During this period, Chuck hadn't said anything to Dave.

Jimmy didn't mention those previous cases at all and continued to interrogate Dave only about the current case, wanting to confirm this one first. Then, after the forensic reports arrived, he'd handle the previous cases.

This was Jimmy's strategy—simple, but potentially very effective. When they thought there was only this one criminal fact, they usually weighed whether to admit the crime and considered whether the consequences of admitting it were acceptable. Once they admitted it, other cases would emerge one by one, piling on gradually.

Dave wasn't planning to admit a lot at once; after more than an hour, he had only admitted that the gun was his and that he had fired at Jimmy. These admissions were unavoidable. As for the rest, he did not admit, not giving Jimmy an easy resolution. He even mentioned an argument that the gun was the vagrant's, but Jimmy immediately countered by saying, "The gun has only your fingerprints," blocking any retort from Dave.

Jimmy and Chuck eventually left the detention center with little gain; Jimmy shared his thoughts with Chuck on the road. Chuck had no objections; this was Jimmy's case, and he couldn't interfere much but hoped they could resolve the other cases together later.

Background Information:

The plea bargaining system in the United States is outrageous. Defendants and prosecutors, as parties to the litigation, can negotiate the content of the litigation, including charges and sentencing. If there are multiple charges, they can negotiate whether to prosecute on all charges or select just one for litigation. In cases where multiple sentences are combined, life imprisonment or even death penalty cases can, through negotiation, be reduced to several decades or even years in prison, and negotiating for a few years of imprisonment plus probation isn't impossible either.

Even more outrageous is that U.S. law allows a defendant to make a guilty plea while not admitting the criminal facts, known as an "Alford plea." Most likely, the lawyer would also have Dave make such a plea, and the deal he planned to make with the prosecutor was likely the same as Alford's, pleading guilty to second-degree murder to avoid the death penalty.

The Alford case was a case from the 1970s where Alford was accused of first-degree murder, which under North Carolina law would result in the death penalty. Later, on his lawyer's advice, he accepted the prosecutor's deal for second-degree murder, with a maximum sentence of 30 years. When answering the judge's questions, he stated he had not committed murder but pleaded guilty. The judge continued to inquire about the voluntariness of his decision, concluded that Alford knew and accepted the consequences of his guilty plea, and accepted Alford's plea.

Later, the defendant Alford appealed this case to the United States Supreme Court on the issue of the voluntariness of his guilty plea, arguing his plea was invalid as it was made under the threat of the death penalty.

The United States Supreme Court's stance in the Alford case was clear; even if a defendant does not admit their own crime, they can still plead guilty to the charges. If a defendant makes a guilty plea simply to avoid the death penalty and has received effective legal help in making this plea, considering all possible choices, then the defendant's guilty plea is voluntary, informed, and does not violate the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, which protects against self-incrimination.

If you find any errors ( broken links, non-standard content, etc.. ), Please let us know < report chapter > so we can fix it as soon as possible.