But SOMETHING surely happens if you answer no, after you've just been found guilty....or else the judge wouldn't even bother asking you that. Do you still go to prison, but another type of hearing is automatically scheduled....or what?? Anyone know??
What TJM said is pretty much it.
Trials are usually bifurcated into guilt and sentencing phases. The procedures for each are pretty specifically mandated by statute and common law (case law). If an error is committed during the trial phase objections preserve issues for possible appeal which could result in an overturned verdict and a new trial. If an error is committed during the sentencing phase, objections preserve issues for appealing the sentence, which may result in the case may be remanded for resentencing. It usually has no effect on the result of the guilt phase.
Most of the language you hear during a sentencing is stuff that judges
must ask. The answer is usually meaningless but for appeal preservation. It's a game of you must say the right words to have your sentence upheld. Again, the sentencing usually has no effect on the outcome of the guilt phase. A year or so ago, the Ohio Supreme Court (where I am) found a constitutional sentencing error in a case and issued a decision remanding that case and the joined cases (there were several) back to the trial court for resentencing. Basically, the OSC said that the trial judge didn't say the right words. There were hundreds of appeals based on that decision in
Roberts. Most of those cases went back, the judge said the right words, and the convicted received the exact same sentence.
I once saw a sentencing similar to what you describe. The only difference was this case it was a plea and not a conviction. The defendant decided in the middle of sentencing that he didn't really want to take the plea and tried to convice the judge that he would never have taken the plea but for the advice of his attorney. The judge refused, preserved it for the record, completed the sentencing and away the guy went.
One of the things I think people often forget is that the job of a defense attorney is not to prove you innocent, it is to assure that you receive a fair trial. The burden of proving a case lies solely with the prosecution. I spent a few years as a public defender and I'd can say with certainty that 99% of the people I defended were guilty (most aren't even smart enough to lie about it to you either). Yes, there are innocent people convicted. But, in the overwhelming majority of cases, the person is guilty. You have a constitutional right to a fair trial. A defense attorney's job is assure that happens. Just because a defendant
wants to be aquitted, doesn't mean his attorney was remiss in his duty. It may mean his is just one dumbass criminal who left a shitload of evidence sufficient to convict him.
Author