Criminal defense attorneys may advise clients to plead not guilty even when they admit privately to committing an offence, a practice that often sparks public confusion but is grounded in constitutional protections, according to attorney-at-law Warren Cassell.
In a social media post this week, Cassell explained that a plea of not guilty does not necessarily mean an accused person is denying responsibility. Instead, he said, it can amount to a demand that the prosecution prove its case in accordance with the law.
Cassell pointed to Section 15(2)(a) of the Antigua and Barbuda Constitution, which guarantees the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven. He noted that similar protections exist across the region, including under Montserrat’s Constitution Order.
Under criminal law, Cassell said, the burden of proof rests entirely on the prosecution, not the accused. A defendant is not required to prove innocence; prosecutors must establish every element of the alleged offence beyond a reasonable doubt.
By pleading not guilty, Cassell explained, defendants ensure that prosecutors are required to meet that legal threshold, a safeguard designed to protect against weak or insufficient evidence. He added that entering a guilty plea effectively assists the prosecution by conceding the charges as laid.
Cassell also said a not-guilty plea can preserve an accused person’s constitutional rights while allowing attorneys time to pursue negotiations, including the possibility of reduced charges or lighter sentences, rather than immediately exposing a defendant to maximum penalties.
The attorney indicated that he plans to further discuss legal rights and criminal procedure in an upcoming season of his programme, This Is the Law, scheduled to air on Observer Radio and ZDK in February 2026.
Advertise with the mоѕt vіѕіtеd nеwѕ ѕіtе іn Antigua!
We offer fully customizable and flexible digital marketing packages.
Contact us at [email protected]
Yawns….Prosecution drills with evidence and the rule of law……Defense Attorney fights back with lack of specific evidence, testimony discrepancies, witness character credibility and if possible or necessary express the positive image of the client and why there is reasonable doubt….
Angela and the Chantel murder case is going to be very interesting. Here comes Wendel and there goes the DPP. The DPP should try this case himself in Court. A thriller in Antigua, and the winner is…
WHAT THE HELL…! …JUSTICE: NOT NEGOTIABLE: …UNWITTING SUGGESTING
NEITHER FOR REDUCED CHARGE: NOR …LIGHTER SENTENCE
***
DIFFERENCES:
Clearly, some ‘…CRIMINAL DEFENCE ATTORNEYS’ seem not to know the ‘…DIFFERENCES’ between:
(a) ‘…MOUNTING STRONG DEFENCES, FAVORABLE TO THE ‘…EXORBITANT LEGAL-FEE-PAYING CLIENTS.
SOME DO NOT KNOW THAT SUCH IS OBTAINED ONLY IN ‘…FULL TRIALS’ (Summary/Criminal).
***
(b) …THE DAFT AND THE INCOMPETENT SEEM ONLY CONTEND: in
(c) …OFFERING PLEAS IN MITIGATION.’
***
That of which the ‘…FRAUDSTERS’ were often ‘…ACCUSED’ has been:
(i) ‘…ALLOWING THE ‘…DPP/CROWN PROSECUTORS’ to ‘…GIVE THE FACTS OF THE CASES AGAINST THE ACCUSED PERSONS: then
(ii) …AWAIT COURT-ORDERED SOCIAL INQUIRY REPORTS (SIR): then
(iii) …OFFER TO THE COURTS (Magistracy/Criminal Assize Judges) ‘…PLEAS IN MITIGATION.’
***
ADVICE-GRATIS:
ENGAGE NO SUCH ‘…LEGAL PRACTITIONERS,’ AS ‘…DEFENCE ATTORNEYS.’
***
BEFORE ADVANCING FURTHER:
Firstly, that which shall be said is that ‘…ALL IDEAS SHALL CONTEND.’
***
Secondly, some of which so proferred, and have not been here-to-fore responded, are greatly respected.’
***
SPEWING FOOLISH UTTERANCES:
That which this ‘…CRIMINAL DEFENCE ATTORNEY,’ as well as those who have not so
(a) ‘…SPEWED FOOLISH UTTERANCES IN RESPECT TO CRIMINAL JUSTICE:
***
Even as may have been:
(i) ‘…UNWITTINGLY SUGGESTED:
(ii) …EXPOSING DIRECTORS OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS/ CROWN PROSECUTORS: in
(iii) …INDULGING/ENGAGING IN ‘…DUBIOUS PROSECUTORIAL BEHAVIOR:
(iv) …COMPOUNDING SKULLDUGGEROUS PROSECUTORIAL PRACTICES: thereby
(v) …CORRUPTING THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM,’ are all bad for:
(a) ‘…THE ADMINISTRATION: and
(b) …DISPENSATION OF JUSTICE.’
***
NOW:
EVEN AS SOME LEGAL PRACTITIONERS SO BELIEVE, ‘…JUSTICE IS NOT NEGOTIABLE:’
***
THE JUDICIARY AND THE ADMINISTRATORS OF JUSTICE, KNOW THAT. This is so, whether or not in
(i) …HOPE OF REDUCED CHARGES: or in
(ii) …HOPE FOR LIGHTER SENTENCES’ [Paragraph 6 of news story].
***
From professional training, evidenced by:
(a) ‘…PRACTICAL LAW ENFORCEMENT:
(b) …APPLICATION OF THE JUDGES’ RULES:
(c) …KNOWLEDGE OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF THE ‘…LAWS OF EVIDENCE:
(d) …PROSECUTORIAL EXPERIENCES,’ not only could
(i) ‘…SOME DEFENCE ATTORNEYS MAY NOT: only
(ii) …PLACE THEIR CLIENTS IN ‘…SERIOUS CUSTODIAL JEOPARDY: but also
(iii) …FACED WITH ‘…UNPAYABLE HEFTY FINANCIAL PENALTIES.’
***
UNIVERSAL MAXIMS:
THEY SHALL ALWAYS BE MINDFUL AND GUIDED BY THE ‘…UNIVERSAL MAXIMS:
(a) ‘…HE WHO ASSERTS, MUST PROVE [CO: I981: Section: 15 (2) (a)].
***
NOW:
(b) …EQUALLY AS MUCH AS ‘…TRUTH IS NOT DIVISIBLE,’ SO TOO IS ‘…JUSTICE:’
***
IT SHALL BE SAID: that
(i) ‘…JUSTICE,’ must not only be ‘..SEEN’ to be done: but
(ii) …JUSTICE, must ‘…MANIFESTLY’ be seen to have been done ‘ [R v Sussex Justices: ex parte McCarthy: 1923].
***
This may assist ‘ATTORNEYS’ in requesting ‘Trial Judges/Magistrates in ‘…RECUSING THEMSELVES FROM TRIALS.’
***
WHAT THE HELL…!
***
EVEN THE ‘…INDEFENSIBLE,’ THOSE SO RETAINED TO DEFEND, SHALL ‘…DEFEND.’
***
This is why the judiciary comes into constant conflict with law abiding citizens who morally understand right from wrong.
What utter hogwash that a guilty person has confessed to his lawyer that they are guilty, and then advised to plead not guilty, so that the prosecution lawyer must present their evidence to the judge.
Morally wrong, and morally reprehensible!
And with the rise of criminals being released on “technicalities”, mainly due to how evidence has been collected (by police and forensic teams around the window). Is it any wonder that that people are angry and exasperated at the amount of criminals walking the streets when they should be rightly locked up in jail.
Justices is on the side of the criminal it seems…
It’s not only politics that needs a thorough cleansing, the judicial system does as well, in my very humble opinion.
“…Around the *world*…”
Just go right ahead and add more fire to the fuel Mr Cassell.
Intelligence and smarts are two different things, and you clearly showed it here.
Next time, keep that knowledge to yourself, because it’s not all the time that you must be heard.
That’s where smarts over intelligence comes in.
Gad nar sleep
You may “get off” temporarily in an earthly court, but HEAVEN’S LEDGER RECORDS EVERY DETAIL WITH “TERRIBLE ACCURACY”.
We must ALL appear before the Judgement seat of Christ Jesus
Wendell’s MAXIM
BECAUSE YOU DID THE CRIME DOES NOT MEAN YOU ARE GUILTY.
Mr Pompey put that in your pipe……..
WHAT THE HELL…! …IS MELLIE: …A SMOKER OR JOKER…?
***
This is for ‘…MELLIE.’
***
EVEN WITH SOME DETECTION OF ‘…SIMPLETONISTIC STUPIDITY’ (coined for this reply), KINDLY URGED TO LET ‘…CIVILTY’ PREVAIL.
***
NOW:
Whether by ‘…WENDELL: …MENDELL OR KENDALL,’ the contents are not ‘…MAXIMS.’
***
READ ‘…SECTION 4 OF THE CONSTITUTION ORDER, 1981.’
***
Take it from:
(i) ‘… A PROFESSIONAL CRIMINAL INVESTIGATOR: and
(ii) …A PROFESSIONAL COURT PROSECUTOR.’
***
WHERE THERE IS ‘…CRIMINAL PROSECUTION,’ IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN FOR SOME ALLEGED ‘…CRIME
***
A ‘CRIME’ IS A ‘CRIME.’
***
A ‘VERDICT’ IS A ‘VERDICT.’
***
WELL:
To my good friend, ‘…MELLIE,’ it shall be said:
(a) ‘…WHERE IGNORANCE IS ‘…BLISS,’ IT IS FOLLY TO BE WISE: and
(b) …PEOPLE WHO LACK, AND DESIROUS OF KNOWLEDGE, DO NOT ‘…SMOKE PIPE.’
***
WHAT IS A CRIME, MELLIE…?
WELL, SIMPLY DEFINED: THIS IS:
(a) ‘…AN ACT (deliberate/reckless): or
(b) …AN OMISSION (gross negligence): for
(c) …A SEVERE PUNISHMENT IS PRESCRIBED (foreseeable consequences of harm and punishment).
***
ADVICE: …BRAIN LESSON: …FROM ‘…MR. POMPEY’
MELLIE, BOY, PUT THIS LESSON IN YOUR ‘ …BRAIN: and
***
TWO THINGS TO BE BORNE IN MIND:
(i) ‘…RETAIN IT: and
(ii) …REMEMBER IT.
***
WHAT THE HELL…!
***
HAPPY NEW YEAR, ‘…MELLIE.’
***
WALK GOOD, MELLIE.
***
Comments are closed.