Reference no: EM133291303

Assignment:

 In Ohio, in the case of Bradshaw v. Stumpf, 545 U.S. 175 (2005), Stumpf was involved in a robbery and aggravated murder with another accomplice. Stumpf admitted to shooting one individual but maintained that his accomplice had shot the other victim who died. He eventually pled guilty and was sentenced to death for the murder. In the trial of his accomplice, however, the state provided evidence that the accomplice admitted to the shooting death. Stumpf filed an appeal to remove his plea based on the evidence presented at his accomplice's trial.

The Ohio court denied his appeal, as did a federal district court but the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision. The Supreme Court heard the case and had to decide whether Stumpf's conviction was valid because the prosecution used evidence that was inconsistent in the trials of him and his accomplice.

In a 9-0 decision the Court decided that Stumpf's plea was valid because his attorney had explained to him the charges and entered into the plea agreement knowingly. The Court did opine, however, that the death sentence may be in error because of the prosecutor's conduct in the trials. They remanded the case back to the 6th Circuit to make that determination. What are your thoughts on the plea bargaining process when there are multiple defendants? Should the government have to determine who is responsible for which offenses before they enter into plea agreements, or can they use different facts in different cases in attempts to elicit plea bargains?

Was it ok for the prosecution to pin the murder on Stumpf and get him to enter a plea even though he maintained he did not shoot the victim, and then use his accomplice's confession to the murder in the accomplice's case? Should Stumpf's attorney have advised him to not accept the plea if he believed that Stumpf did not shoot the victim? Explain your answers.