Today I watched American Gangster. The story about Frank Lucas.

!*Spoiler*!

In the end Frank works together with Richie. They make a deal. He could choose between 'rich and in prison, or poor outside of prison'. Therefore he has to point out the corrupt policemen. That he does. So his part of the deal is over.

Then the movie is almost over and the history is written in the movie (can't explain it otherwise..)...Frank Lucas got 70 years of prison (later 15)...but that wasn't the deal with Richie.

My question: how does the system of crown witness works here?

Floors, if I understand your question directly, the American equivalent of a "Crown Witness" is a "Witness for the Prosecution"--someone called to testify in a criminal case for the prosecution, which will used his/her testimony against the defendant. The witness may be an innocent party (i.e., the victim of the crime for which the defendant is being prosecuted), or, like Frank Lucas, someone who's testifying as part of a "plea bargain." In that case, the witness is a criminal. In return for admitting his guilt, waiving his right against self-incrimination, and testifying against others (in Lucas's case, crooked cops), he gets a much lighter sentence than he would have if he'd been tried and convicted without cooperating. This happens all the time in American justice--it's one of the main reasons why the Mafia is greatly weakened.

Were you thinking of Bram Zeegers, the witness in the Holleeders case who committed suicide?

No I wasn't thinking about Bram Zeegers. Because he isn't a criminal. In Holland the crown witness is a criminal himself (like Lucas) who makes a deal with the prosecution for a lighter sentence. The only thing here is that the judge (we don't have a jury) is always the last one who decides. A crown witness can make a deal with the prosecution (thus lighter sentence) but the judge is always free to give the 'normal' punishment.

Can a judge do that in America? Cuz it sounds weird. You have judges, but the one who's making the deals (prosecutor) defines the punishment in this cases. Normally the jury is the one doing that isn't?

Some statutes permit the jury to determine the sentence. But in nearly all cases, the judge decides the sentence. If a defendant "cops a plea," he, his lawyer, and the prosecutor will work out a deal. The judge cannot officially participate in those negotiations. And the judge is free to impose a normal sentence regardless of what the others worked out. But the judge almost always will go along with the prosecutor's recommendation for leniency, especially if the witness has been very cooperative and has helped convict those whom the prosecutor was trying to convict.

Okay thanks for that explanation. Now I understand it. Especially the roles of the prosecution, jury and judges. I never understood what the role of the judge was in a country where they have juries. It isn't so different from ours after all. What I expected it to be.

In Holland the 'Crown witness' is something new. So it needs a lot of development. In Holland the judge will also go along with the prosecutor.

Thanks for Turnbull!

1) What is the normal percentage of the 'lighter' sentence in USA? In Holland the crown witness gets the maximum of 1/3 lighter sentence. Thus if he normally gets 9 years, as a crown witness he can get a minimum of 6 years. The weird thing is that technically the deal can be 9 years minus 1 day.

2)I read in a book that the USA doesn't have a 'population register' with all the names of all the civilians living in USA. If that's true its more logic that they can have a working 'witness protection program'.

3)Do I understand it correct that 'plea bargaining' can also include that the prosecutor chance the indictions? Thus changing the number of criminal facts because the witness cooperated? Because in Holland this form of 'deal' is absolutely illegal.

4)In Holland the prosecutor is in some way free to decide if he will prosecute the defendant or not. We call it the 'opportuniteits beginsel'(free translation: opportunity principle). Does this principle also excist in your law? The main problem is that the prosecutor can have an 'deal' with the criminal trough a back-door.

Hope to hear some thoughts.

1) I'm not sure there is a normal percentage for plea bargaining. It varies by prosecutor, state vs. federal cases, the severity of the crimes, the amount of public attention, whether or not the prosecutor is up for election, and especially what previous criminals got.

2) No. No population register here. There is SS of course and a few other ways to get just about everyone's identity but I think the main reason witness protection works is that the US is a huge place with a relatively mobile population.

3) Yes, in plea bargaining the prosecutor can agree to drop certain charges. Something that many prosecutors do is to overcharge in order to have some leverage to convince a defendant to take a deal.

4) Ultimately it's up to the prosecutor to decide if he (she) has enough to bring a case. They may not want to bring a case at a given point in time because the facts are weak or they aren't ready to disclose investigative methods, undercover agents or informants or any number of other reasons. In a lot of cases, though particularly organized crime ones, there are multiple jurisdictions, so where one prosecutor/law enforcement group may demur bringing charges, another one may charge ahead. This happened in NY with Gotti when US attorney went ahead with a case, despite conflicts with the FBI, and revealed to the FBI's displeasure that Gotti associate Willie Boy Johnson was an informant.

Floors, Lilo gave you excellent answers to your questions. I'd like to add to what he said:


Judges and prosecutors hate trials because they are costly and time consuming. That's why most criminal cases result in guilty pleas after plea bargains. But, as Lilo pointed out, the "political" factor is very important. Plea bargains are most likely to be offered when the crime is "victimless" (i.e., gambling or assault on another criminal). But you'll seldom see a plea bargain in a case of child molestation--everyone hates a child molester, and a prosecutor will get no thanks from the public for going easy on that kind of felon.


America is almost schizophrenic about "privacy." On the one hand, we've passed many laws in the last 20 years safeguarding privacy of Social Security numbers, records, etc. On the other hand, with electronic record-keeping and the Internet, it's easier than ever to find and "steal" another person's identity. Witness Protection Program identities and addresses are supposed to be ultra-secret. But records are kept, and if enough money is spread around...


That's especially true here in Arizona. This is a major venue for methamphetamine production. Police are always capturing moron criminals who commit stupid traffic offenses (like speeding 25 mph over the limit) while carrying large quantities of drugs, plus drug paraphernalia like pipes, bongs, scales, etc. So the police will not only charge them with a felony (possession of illegal substance with intent to sell), but also with possession of drug paraphernalia (another felony). If the criminal talked back to police, they'll charge him with resisting arrest--another felony. And the speeding? They'll charge him with "attempting to evade lawful arrest" (another felony). By the time all those felony charges add up, the guy's looking at about 100 years in prison. So, prosecutors offer him a deal: Plead guilty to possession of drugs with intent to sell, take a 7-year sentence, and they drop the other charges.

"Multiple jurisdictions" is important. Here in America we have local courts that hear misdemeanors (offenses like shoplifting, simple assault, theft of less than $1000) that carry maximum sentences of less than one year in prison. County and state courts hear felony cases--anything up to and including murder--that carry sentences of more than a year up to and including the death penalty.

Federal courts hear cases that violate Federal laws or that have an "interstate" component. An obvious Federal offense: counterfeiting (only the Federal government prints currency), or treason (only the Federal government can prosecute spies or traitors). But lots of local and state crimes can have an "interstate" component. For example, if you steal a car in New York and cross over into New Jersey, you could be prosecuted in a Federal court for "interstate transport of stolen goods." How are such cases decided? Sometimes the requirements of proof in one jurisdiction make it easier to prosecute there than in another jurisdiction. For example, in order for Gotti to be convicted in a New York State court, the prosecution would have to prove that he committed an actual crime, and produce two witnesses to testify to his crime. But in a Federal court, he could be tried under the RICO Act, which only requires the prosecution to prove "conspiracy" to be part of a criminal organization, and doesn't require a corroborating witness.

Lilo and Turnbull thanks for the replies. Excellent posts! I'll reread it another time because it's not all clear for me. But thanks!