Update — and Edification — on the Vick Plea Deal
[Posted by WLS]
There seems to be some consternation and teeth-gnashing over the revelation that Michael Vick is not going to be admitting to gambling on dog fighting or participating in the killing of dogs as part of his plea.
Vick is charged only with a single count of conspiracy to commit certain crimes. The crime of conspiracy has at its core a “agreement” to engage in certain criminal conduct — not the actual commission of that conduct.
The legal elements of the criminal charge of conspiracy are 1) an agreement between two or more persons 2) to commit one or more crimes 3) with a present intention at the time of the agreement that the crimes are to be committed, and 4) an overt act by one or more persons towards to commission of the agreed upon crimes.
The “facts” alleged in the indictment are meant to establish the factual basis to show that each of these four elements is present, thereby showing that a crime has been committed. But, its not necessary to prove — or for a defendant to admit — that each fact alleged in the indictment is true. So, while it is alleged in the indictment that Vick gambled on the dog fights, and that Vick participated in killing dogs, there are other facts that would also prove his involvement in a conspiracy without him having to admit that he did either of those two things.
What is being reported is that Vick will admit that he provided the money to fund the operation, and that he was present when dog fights took place.
When a defendant pleads “guilty”, he is admitting that he committed a crime, not that he admits every fact supporting the charge against him.
A defendant must only admit sufficient facts necessary to satisfy the judge that there is a factual basis to support the plea of guilty to the crime.
The crime charged is an agreement with others to do certain criminal things.
Vick is going to admit that he entered into such an agreement, and he provided the money — that is an “overt act” on his part to see the object of the conspiracy fulfilled.
He’s also going to admit that he was present when dogfighting took place. That establishes knowledge of the illegal object of the conspiracy.
That is as far as his “admission” needs to go to be both the admission of a crime, and the admission of facts sufficient to establish an evidentiary basis that the crime ocurred.
The prosecutor has no interest in making Vick admit every fact in the indictment. The prosecutor’s interest is in getting the admission of guilt concerning the crime.
The judge MIGHT want Vick to admit to more, but at the end of the day Vick doesn’t have to admit to anything more than the crime with which he is charged — and he’s not charged with gambling on dog fights or killing dogs.
He won’t admit that, and his failure to do so will have no impact on the outcome of the federal case against him.
Now, I see that the rapper DMX has had his house in AZ raided. Found were 10 injured pitbulls.
What is with this fighting dogs thing ?
Neo (cba5df) — 8/24/2007 @ 2:29 pmHave you read the statement of facts stipulated? There’s not a whole lot that was in the indictment that isn’t in the statement of facts that Vick signed. He admits that he sponsored dogs in fights for money. He claims that he never got any of the proceeds from those fights, which is laughable. He admits participating in the killing of dogs.
He doesn’t admit to placing any side wagers, but he absolutely admits to gambling.
Skip (b45646) — 8/24/2007 @ 6:25 pmAnd now the NFL commissioner has suspended Vick from the League, without pay. All of the particulars will be available to the league for its’ deliberations.
Say “Goodbye”, Michael. You’ve already had your “Farewell Tour”.
Another Drew (8018ee) — 8/24/2007 @ 6:47 pmOk — I’ve now had a chance to read the stipulated facts which Vick admits the government could prove beyond a reasonable doubt it there was a trial.
I don’t know what Vick’s camp thought they were going to accomplish with their pre-release spinning of the plea agreement, but Vick has admitted to every factual allegation in the indictment except being involved in side-bets on the outcome of individual dog fights.
He’s screwed.
wls (aad074) — 8/24/2007 @ 8:38 pmHe was screwed before.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 8/24/2007 @ 8:43 pmThe problem isn’t with the degree of specificity in the elocution. It’s that there is a plea to begin with.
If the reporting is correct, the prosecutors were given substantive, if not incontrovertible, evidence that Vick did a hell of a lot more than originally charged. Slam dunk stuff.
Why is he being allowed to skate?
If EVER there was a public interest in going to trial, this is it. Let’s have a public airing, through sworn testimony, of the hideous nature of the enterprise. Let’s be sure that it be a long time before Vick is allowed to live off the many millions he has in the bank.
Lets also expose the NFL while we’re at it! Intentional ostriches, the league’s administrators are.
This plea is not in the interests of justice.
Ed (288574) — 8/24/2007 @ 8:58 pmWLS, thanks for your commentary in this and previous posts on the Vick matter. I’m sure I’m not alone in appreciating the insights you offer from a federal prosecutor’s point of view.
Ed (#6): Any time there’s a plea in a high-profile case, there’s a tendency for us onlookers to shake our fists and say, “Dagnabbit! They shoulda gone to trial as a matter of principle!” And you may be right that, for instance, the NFL’s administrators are “intentional ostiches,” and that there would be some public interest served though the “public airing, through sworn testimony, of the hideous nature of the enterprise.”
But that “public airing, through sworn testimony” is already going on, through the plea process. I’ll grant you that it’s not nearly so dramatic, but that’s sort of like complaining that this case is only a one-ring media circus instead of a three-ring media circus.
And strictly speaking — prosecutors being inclined to speak strictly, in my experience with them — exposing the NFL’s potential failings isn’t part of the prosecution team’s mandate. The NFL presumably hasn’t committed any crimes. The League’s lesser failings are excellent grist for the discussion mills in the MSM and blogosphere, and that’s going on now too, to some extent.
For prosecutors no less than the rest of us lawyers, the practice of law is an art rather than a science, and they’re obliged to rely on informed gut hunches and the weighing of very subjective factors in deciding how much to charge, and how tough a plea is “acceptable.” One thing that all of us on-lookers can be sure of is that we haven’t seen a fraction of the potential evidence that the prosecution team and, probably, the defense team are already immersed in at least up to their elbows. Had they proceeded to trial on a broader range of charges, what looks to us like a slam-dunk winner for the prosecution from our current perspective might have turned out into an embarrassing loss at trial based on shaky witnesses, bad breaks, a jury panel biased by sympathy toward the local football hero, or whatever. Both sides eliminate risks through plea agreements; that’s the nature of compromise, and the terms of any given compromise presumably reflect each side’s considered evaluation of those risks and each side’s own degree of risk-aversion.
It’s not an irrebutable presumption (see: Nifong), but I generally operate on the reasonable assumption that there are good reasons why the prosecution team didn’t insist on a full-blown trial “just on the principle of the thing,” and that the interests of justice would instead be adequately served by a particular plea. The judge also has a say, and in passing sentence, he’s likely to share your view that he should ensure that it’s a “long time before Vick is allowed to live off the many millions he has in the bank.”
Vick might have done better or worse through a trial; so might the prosecution team. We can’t know that for sure, but we can be reasonably sure that Vick won’t “skate.”
Beldar (1b82e4) — 8/25/2007 @ 1:30 am‘…The commissioner also cleared the Falcons to try to get back $22 million in signing bonuses paid as part of a 10-year, $130 million contract.’
No pay from the NFL, a cancelled contract from Nike, plus, he might have to give back whatever is left from that $22M bonus.
Was it worth it Michael?
Another Drew (8018ee) — 8/25/2007 @ 2:14 pmThere is no reason for dog fighting other than gambling of some sort. Since it is a criminal enterprise naturally criminals show up to “watch.” The bets include drugs, stolen merchandise, women (yes, these are nice guys), and things like cars–in addition to money. One dog fight in Georgia was for a $50,000 purse, in cash. I posted a fairly detailed post HERE with links to some really shocking facts.
Howard Veit (4ba8d4) — 8/26/2007 @ 12:46 amCOCKFIGHTING,BEAR BAITING, these are all crimes in america involving animals as well
krazy kagu (fb0f9e) — 8/26/2007 @ 4:58 pmHey, guess who found Jesus and is turning his life over to God?
Pablo (99243e) — 8/27/2007 @ 7:40 amYeh, I love it. Fastest prison conversion/rehabilitation on record. Since sentencing isn’t until Dec 10, expect Vick to be doing nothing but praising Jesus and working with children with cancer till then. My prediction, he gets 12 months in jail, another year on the sidelines from the NFL, and then is back.
JayHub` (0a6237) — 8/27/2007 @ 11:38 am