In a criminal trial, why make a deal with the prosecution if the defense attorney is likely to get wind of it, and use it to impeach the witness on the stand?
It’s a common strategy in law procedurals, the case the prosecution builds is not tight, they make a plea, then almost invariably the defense attorney impeaches the witness with that. Then, for the record, the episode ends sometimes with another plea without knowing the outcome of the second trial.
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
6 Answers
1) the defense makes the plea, and the prosecutor decides whether it’s worthwhile. The judge has to approve it.
2) The defense isn’t going to impeach their own defendant. That would be stupid.
You need to do some more analysis. You’re all turned around.
The defense attorney is the one making the deal with the prosecution. He’s advising the accused.
In the TV cases I’ve seen (e.g. I mainly remember this on Law & Order), the prosecution does it with a witness, trying to build a stronger case. The person making a deal with the prosecution does it for the deal (e.g. reduced sentence, and/or immunity from prosecution) – they don’t generally care if the defense attorney tries to raise doubts about their testimony based on the deal, because their deal will stand.
Or, are you asking about some other situation?
@jca2: It’s not a given the one to make the plea is the defendant. It could be another person entirely. The important thing is, the case’s not tight, the witness on the stand is impeached, second plea, again, not necessarily with the defendant, especially when (ie in procedurals) the witness is the smaller fish, and the defendant is the big fish.
Just no. Might be best to watch hospital dramas for a while. I gave you a link with real information. Perhaps your TV experience is with legal dramas set in countries other than America. My answers are American perspective.
Answer this question 
This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.
Composing members:
0
