, The Coloradoan, reports:

In a country that constitutionally protects the right to a fair and speedy trial, remarkably few cases ever go before a jury.

During the past three years, less than 1 percent of criminal cases filed in Larimer County made it to trial.

Instead, the vast majority of cases were resolved through plea agreements, a mutual settlement between prosecutors and the defendant, usually with the help of a defense attorney or public defender.

Plea agreements often result in the dismissal of one or more charges in exchange for a guilty plea from the defendant. “Over the course of time, from a statistical standpoint, only 1 1/2 to 2 percent (of cases) statewide go to trial,” said Steven Vasconcellos of the Colorado State Judicial Branch, noting that for Larimer County’s demographics and population — about 266,000 — it is not out of line when it comes to its frequent use of plea agreements.

In Boulder County, which has a population of about 278,000 and also is home to a large public university, only half of 1 percent of criminal cases went to trial in 2003.

In Larimer County, 0.4 percent of cases went to trial, according to data provided by the Colorado State Judicial Branch.

In 2002, both counties tried 0.7 percent of all criminal cases, a tad less than the 1 percent of criminal cases that went to trial in Boulder and Larimer counties in 2000.

Trial rates are calculated by dividing the number of criminal trials held in District Court in a given year by the number of criminal cases filed that same year.

While the data doesn’t exactly compare apples to apples, authorities say the calculation provides an accurate picture of Colorado’s criminal justice system, which simply couldn’t survive without most cases ending in plea agreements.

District Court Judge Terence Gilmore said just doing the math shows the necessity of plea bargaining, which is more efficient and less costly than sending a case to trial.

With 2,600 felony cases filed in 2003 divided among four judges, Gilmore said judges could spend every working hour in trial and still not get through every case.

And that doesn’t take into account pretrial hearings or cases carried over from previous years.

“I’ve always compared it to a 50-lane highway going into the Eisenhower Tunnel,” District Attorney Stu VanMeveren said, noting there simply aren’t enough judges, prosecutors, defense lawyers and police officers to send every case to trial.

VanMeveren pointed to the Kobe Bryant case as an example of how time-consuming and expensive just getting to trial can be.

According to a Sept. 2 report in the Vail Daily, the sexual assault case against the pro-basketball star, which was dropped Sept. 1, cost Eagle County about $277,197, with the total tab for the 5th Judicial District amounting to $325,000.

After 14 months of hearings, controversial testimony and preparation for trial, the case was dismissed as jury selection was under way.

Plea agreements frequently can be reached within weeks or months of an initial arrest, and defendants can accept a plea agreement at any time during the judicial process.

Ultimately, a judge decides whether to accept the plea, but VanMeveren said less than 5 percent of plea agreements are rejected each year.

Because plea agreements often result in reduced charges, the public tends to perceive that a defendant got off easy. But prosecutors and defense attorneys alike said that’s rarely the case.

“Ninety-nine times out of 100 we’re going to get the same sentence whether (a person) is convicted of one or two or three counts, because 99 times out of 100, courts will sentence concurrently,” VanMeveren said.

That means even if a defendant gets 10 years on four separate charges, the sentences would likely be served at the same time, rather than one after another.

By law, sentences for multiple counts in all juvenile cases and many adult cases must be concurrent rather than consecutive.

Defense attorneys said plea agreements frequently work in favor of the prosecution.

“In many instances, it’s a person who is not guilty or not guilty of the crime they’re charged with that is put in the position of signing a plea agreement because it’s too costly and involves too much risk to send it to trial,” Fort Collins private defense attorney Bob Rand said. “When I was a prosecutor, I never thought that was the case, but it often is.”

VanMeveren said if law enforcement and prosecutors are doing their jobs, charges should be filed only in strong cases that would likely result in a conviction at trial.

Confident that’s what is happening, the district attorney said most of the time “the writing’s on the wall,” and plea agreements aren’t a question of guilt or innocence, but more a question of sentencing.

Public defender Matt Zehe said he worries when defendants sign plea agreements that offer probation or a suspended sentence, because in the end, many don’t get what they bargained for.

If defendants comply with the terms of a suspended sentence, charges that loom over their record will be dismissed upon completion of the sentence.

But if conditions of the sentence are violated, the conviction goes on his or her record, and additional penalties can be imposed.

In 2002, about 76 percent of suspended sentences resulted in revocations and felonies going on defendants’ permanent records, chief public defender Norm Townsend said.

“I think people grab on to false hope,” he said, noting that financial problems and addiction frequently get in the way of compliance. “For too many people (taking a deal), it is just a trap.”

Still, local authorities said plea agreements tend to appeal to both defendants and victims in a case.

“From a defendant’s perspective, there’s value in certainty,” Townsend said. Plea agreements frequently stipulate a sentence or give sentencing guidelines and allow defendants’ and victims’ input into the conviction.

From a victim’s standpoint, plea agreements eliminate the need to testify at a trial, minimize risk and can bring closure much more quickly.

“Testifying is a very stressful thing for victims,” said Jane Bradley, a victims advocate with the District Attorney’s Office.

Victims who in the beginning worry that a defendant will get off with just a slap on the wrist tend to be fairly accepting of plea agreements once they understand the reasoning behind it, Bradley said.

Victims generally are consulted about plea offers, though the final decision is made by the deputy district attorney.

Still, not all victims come away from plea agreements feeling satisfied.

Though she recognizes that her case is unique, Lisa Cappeli said the plea agreement offered to her mother’s killer was heartbreaking and did not bring him to justice.

Thirty years after he killed his wife, Carmina “Nina” Anderson, in Rist Canyon, then 65-year-old Charles Anderson was charged with second-degree murder.

The case ended in August 2003 when Anderson pleaded no contest to manslaughter and accepted a plea agreement that carried a sentence of one year in prison.

With credit for time served in county jail, Anderson served just eight months.

Investigators said there would have been problems trying a 30-year-old murder case with little evidence and no murder weapon. Much of the evidence was never found, and the gun believed to have been used in the murder was auctioned off years ago.

Cappeli, 41, of Lakewood, said she was consulted about the agreement and told that without tangible evidence, the case might not stand up in trial. Still, Cappeli said she was disgusted with the outcome.

“(A plea agreement) is an easy, convenient way to clear the court docket,” she said. “It does not serve justice.”

Originally published Monday, September 13, 2004