I chose to write about dilemma number four: “You are a prosecutor in a large district. You have received a case involving a crime against a child where the child victim is 10 years old. You have a strong case against the suspect and expect to win at trial. The penalty for the crimes carries 20 years to life for the perpetrator should the jury find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The parents have expressed they want the maximum penalty. Testifying will be detrimental to the 10-year-old but the child wants to testify and the parents have agreed. A therapist has assured you the child is strong enough to tell the story on the stand but is concerned
about long-term effects. You have 5 other high-profile cases and 20 other felonies backlogged. The District Attorney has been encouraging the ADAs to plea bargain as much as possible to keep costs down because the budget is being crunched for the high-profile trials. The defense has
signaled they want to confer about a plea bargain of 15 years with 5 years suspended. What should you do?”
What I would do would be to let the child testify. If both the child and the parents agreed to having the child testify, and they want maximum penalty, I would be morally okay with having that child do it. I would not care how many cases I have, I would do the best I can to get the suspect the highest sentence I can, especially since the victim is a 10 year old child.
The pros would be that the suspect would get the highest sentence I could give them, and the family would get their wishes. The cons is that it is detrimental for the child to testify in the long run, that there are a lot more cases to do, and it would be going against the district attorney’s wishes to keep the budget down and to accept plea deals.
