BorceRistevski case study
1. BorceRistevskiinitiated the first plea negotiations in September 2018 when he offered to plead guilty to manslaughter if the OPP reduced the charges. A plea deal was not reached at this time as Borce refused to give any information on how or why he killed his wife, so the OPP rejected the offer.
2. In March 2019 the trial judge ruled that certain aspects of BorceRistevski’s post-offence conduct could not be used by the prosecution as evidence of an intention to kill. This lead to the OPP accepting Ristevski’s original plea offer as they were unable to use this evidence.
3. Responses will vary. Students should point out the extent to which they think plea negotiations did facilitate a fair resolution to this criminal dispute, or the extent to which they think plea negotiations did facilitate a fair resolution.
- Students might consider the following points:
- Plea negotiations helpedBorceRistevskiunderstand the case against him and consider his realistic chances of success, supporting the right of the accused to a fair trial.
- Plea negotiations in this case saved the court time and resources, meaning that they could be allocated to other cases, possibly reducing the court backlog
- Plea negotiations can result in guilty pleas that hide relevant circumstances of the wrongdoing from the court. Amended statements of fact can be agreed upon, and any facts that relate to charges dropped during negotiations cannot be presented in sentencing.BorceRistevski refused to give any information on how or why he killed his wife
- Sentence discounts and dropped charges can increase public dissatisfaction with the consequences faced by the offender.
- Remorse is assumed to be present in many guilty pleas, but is not required for a plea deal and a sentence discount will be given even in the absence of remorse.