How Plea Bargaining Really Works in Massachusetts

By Kevin R. Collins, Esq.

September 2025

If you were to walk into any Massachusetts courthouse on a weekday morning, you would witness a peculiar ballet. Prosecutors and defense attorneys huddle in hallway corners scribbling information on legal pads, and exchange hushed negotiations that will determine the fate of most defendants without a jury ever hearing their case. This is plea bargaining in action; the process that resolves roughly 95% of criminal cases in Massachusetts and across the United States.

Yet for all its prevalence, plea bargaining remains poorly understood by the public and increasingly controversial among legal reformers who argue the system has fundamentally distorted American justice.  This article aims to explain how plea deals are made in Massachusetts and several of the problems inherent in this age-old process.

The Massachusetts Process: How Deals Get Made

In 2024, Massachusetts filed over half a million criminal complaints in District and Municipal courts across the Commonwealth. Plea bargaining occurs in the vast majority of those cases and operates under specific rules that have evolved significantly over the past two decades. The process typically begins after a defendant is arraigned and discovery is exchanged between the prosecution and defense.

The Basic Framework

Under Massachusetts Rule of Criminal Procedure 12, amended in 2015, there are several types of plea agreements. The most common is a sentence recommendation where the prosecutor recommends a specific sentence to the judge though the judge retains final discretion. More binding are “joint recommendations” where both sides agree on a sentence, which judges are required to impose unless they find it inappropriate in which case they must allow the defendant to withdraw the plea. Finally, the prosecutor and defense may have “disparate recommendations” where the two sides have different sentences for the judge to consider. If the defendant agrees with the judge’s recommendation, they can accept the resolution. If not, they are permitted to withdraw their plea and schedule the case for trial.

The Negotiation Dance

Research from Harvard Law School’s clinical program found that plea bargaining in Massachusetts Municipal and District Courts is often inefficient due to difficulties reaching agreements both sides view as fair. The typical process follows a predictable pattern: prosecutors make an initial offer that defense attorneys usually reject leading to rounds of counteroffers that can stretch over multiple court dates.

Defense attorneys see the process as part legal analysis, part psychology. They must evaluate not only the strength of the prosecution’s case but also their client’s risk tolerance, family circumstances, employment situation, and immigration status. A plea that seems reasonable to an attorney might be devastating to a defendant facing deportation or job loss.

Prosecutors, meanwhile, balance their own competing pressures. Prosecutors need to move heavy caseloads, they face pressure from victims seeking closure, they have directives from elected district attorneys about specific crimes, and they possess their own views of trial risks. A weak case might warrant a generous plea offer, while a strong case with serious charges gives prosecutors significant leverage.

Too Many Cases

The prevalence of plea bargaining in Massachusetts mirrors national trends, but the state’s data reveals some troubling patterns. As noted above, hundreds of thousands of criminal cases are filed every year in Massachusetts. This vast number of cases brought under a system of mass incarceration means that plea bargaining is the only way for courts to get through the sheer number of cases in their dockets.

In Massachusetts District Courts, which handle the majority of criminal cases, the average felony case is resolved in less than four months, with most defendants never going to trial. This speed comes at a cost. Defendants often make life-altering decisions with limited information about the prosecution’s evidence or their own legal options.

The pressure to plead guilty is particularly intense for defendants who cannot make bail. Spending weeks or months in jail awaiting trial creates powerful incentives to accept any plea that offers immediate release regardless of guilt or the strength of the case.

The Controversies: Criticism From All Sides

Plea bargaining faces mounting criticism from across the political spectrum, with concerns ranging from coercion of innocent defendants to the erosion of constitutional trial rights.

The Innocence Problem

Perhaps the most troubling criticism is that plea bargaining pressures innocent people to confess to crimes they did not commit. When facing potential sentences of decades in prison if convicted at trial versus certain release with time served through a plea, even innocent defendants may choose the “safer” option. Later, many of these defendants often regret their decision with no real remedies available to them.

The National Registry of Exonerations has documented hundreds of cases where innocent people pled guilty, only to be vindicated years later through DNA evidence or other proof. Massachusetts has seen its share of such cases raising questions about how many innocent people remain imprisoned after taking pleas.

The “Trial Penalty“

Critics argue that the disparity between plea offers and potential trial sentences has grown so large that it constitutes a “trial penalty” which violates the constitutional right to trial. In Massachusetts, it is common for prosecutors to offer probation or short jail terms in plea negotiations while threatening years in prison if defendants insist on trial.

This dynamic is particularly problematic in cases involving mandatory minimum sentences, where prosecutors essentially hold all the power. A defendant facing a mandatory prison sentence for drug trafficking or sexual assault might be offered probation in exchange for a plea, making trial an almost impossible choice regardless of case strength.

Resource and Representation Issues

Court-appointed attorneys, who represent the majority of criminal defendants, carry caseloads that make thorough case investigation impossible. With hundreds of active cases, attorneys may have only minutes to spend with each client before plea negotiations. This rushed process can lead to defendants accepting unfavorable deals simply because their attorneys lack time to evaluate alternatives properly.

Prosecutors face similar pressures. District Attorneys’ offices process thousands of cases with limited resources creating incentives to offer standard “going rate” pleas rather than individualizing decisions based on case facts and defendant circumstances.

Reform Efforts and Future Directions

Recognition of these problems has sparked reform efforts at both state and national levels. The American Bar Association recently adopted 14 principles for plea bargaining reform calling for greater transparency, limits on sentence differentials between pleas and trial, and improved indigent defense funding.

In Massachusetts, some reform efforts are already underway. Some District Attorneys have implemented policies limiting the use of mandatory minimums and increasing transparency in plea negotiations. Some courts have experimented with early resolution conferences where judges facilitate discussions before formal plea negotiations begin.

Reform efforts continue, but meaningful change requires confronting difficult questions about resources, priorities, and the fundamental purpose of criminal justice. As long as Massachusetts continues to prosecute hundreds of thousands of cases annually with limited court capacity, plea bargaining will remain central to how justice is administered.

---

Attorney Kevin R. Collins has successfully handled hundreds of cases in Massachusetts, consistently achieving dismissals, reduced charges, and acquittals for his clients. These resolutions have protected his clients’ freedom, careers, and futures. If you are facing criminal charges in Massachusetts and are looking for representation focused on achieving the best outcome for your specific case, contact Attorney Kevin R. Collins today.