We have a guy who is going to plead guilty to 109 counts of child pornography and other sexual offenses against children. He will then go to the jury for punishment.

How do you recommend the court handle the open plea to the jury? Do your judges do a short guilt/innocence charge, instruct the jury to find the defendant guilty, then have them retire to the jury room to find the defendant guilty, and then return for the punishment phase. Or do your judges just have the defendant file plea papers with the court and then proceed directly to the punishment phase with the jury?

Plea papers then jury punishment.

If a defendant pleads guilty to the jury, it is a one phase trial. Even if you introduce the stipulation of guilt, you will still want to put on a lot of your evidence, such as the actual child porn, so that the jury can consider that in assessing the sentences. Then the jury receives a charge within which the judge instructs them to find guilt and to assess punishment, all in the same charge. They go out to deliberate one time only and that is to essentially determine punishment.

Basaldua v. State
481 S.W.2d 851
Tex.Cr.App. 1972.

I always try to get D's who want to do this to enter their guilty plea well in advance of the actual jury selection date for punishment. It helps keep a wishy-washy defendant (Gasp, quoting Gretchen) from changing his mind right before jury selection begins.

You just do one trial. Have the defendant plead guilty before the jury, put on your evidence and then submit charge, which instructs jury to find defendant guilty. Make sure the verdict form reflects the finding.

For example,

"The defendant having entered a plea of guilty, we the jury find the defendant John Doe guilty of the offense of Possession of Child Pornography. We further assess his punishment at (insert appropriate form)"

Does the defendant understand the stacking law? Can your judge (based on the dates of offense) stack these punishments?

Greg brings up an interesting point. Is there a way to force a defendant to show his hand re the plea that he will enter before the jury sooner? A defendant's plea before the jury (in my jurisdiction) isn't entered until the jury is selected and in the box. Meanwhile, the State and the defendant have already conducted voir dire. Obviously, a voir dire discussion of the burden of proof, the bifurcated trial system, etc., is greatly influenced by the defendant's not guilty or guilty plea. Defendants almost always enter a ng plea at arraignment. Nothing prevents them from entering a guilty plea once the jury is in the box. It sure would be nice to know that ahead of time. Most defense attorneys tell us ahead of time if that is the plan but it's still not a done deal until the defendant says the magic guilty word. Any thoughts?

The judge can stack the sentences, and that is what we are hoping he will do.

I usually request a plea before the court before voir dire begins and enter a "guilty plea memorandom" with all the admonishments and stipulations, then read the indictment after the jury is seated and he pleads guilty again before the jury. I have never had one change his mind after the first guilty plea. It makes me a little nervous to voir dire on a guilty plea promise. I have had a few plead guilty after voir dire by surprise, but I had already prepared the jury for the G/I stage and simply explained at the opening statement on punishment.