DA's/Prosecutors/The Crown dont throw offers out there if they think they have 'pretty solid evidence'. Offers come from the prosecuting side if they are looking for the easy way out with a 50/50 case. They'd rather get a free win to a lesser charge than fight a full battle for a 50/50 at the actual charge. They know they have some weakness in their case..likely looing at Mae, Chantal and the rest...and are going for the sure thing with a deal.
Now its up to Nader and his assigned attorney to see if they can figure out the weakness that's got the prosecution offering up a deal, and if its worth the risk of an actual guilty plea. Accepting an offer is never an admission of guilt, even if they terms of the offer tell you to say that. Its accepting that even if you're innocent you think a jury/judge can be manipulated into convicting you. Deals arent made because the prosecutor is being a nice woman that day.
Chantal and the "haydurs' will dunk on "OOH SEE HE ADMITTED HE DID IT" if he takes the deal..even if he's guilty AF he might refuse it out of his dumbass ego.
To sum up..The offer was made because the prosecution thinks something in their case is weak and they dont want to go through the bother. If Nader accepts the deal, it means his side thinks theres something weak in his case and the stepped down consequences arent too much of a bother.
I don't necessarily agree. In Canada, and I can speak to Canada only as a Canadian law fag...a good 85% of criminal cases are settled as plea deals.
I have done Crown work and we never offered a plea over a weak case. In many provinces the police arrest people but they don't ultimately press the charges. The Crown Office does. You'd come into work and have a stack of police files that you had to review and decide whether based on the evidence collected (which has to be at min enough to warrant arrest or you're looking at a possible Charter violation) and decide if the file should be moved forward for prosecution.
Crowns have a special duty to remain neutral and present the best evidence to the Court and let the chips fall where they may. Does everyone even judges carry bias that impacts their work, sure, but I don't know many Crowns that would offer a plea deal on a file full or even 50% full of reasonable doubt.
The beyond a reasonable doubt rule is not met for a conviction if the judge or jury has even 1% doubt.
If you offer a plea on a shit case you are asking a potentially innocent or at least not beyond a reasonable doubt convictable accused to plead guilty and potentially do jail time.
This can lead to your objectivity and fitness for the job to be questioned.
Again is there a chance some Crowns swing wide and hope for a hit? Sure it takes all kinds in any job. But in general pleas are only offered in cases where you are confident you could win at Court so you offer the accused the chance to plead guilty to a lesser charge with a lesser sentence than what you can nail them with in Court.
Also, it is not uncommon for the Crown and defense to work together on the plea and then on a joint sentencing suggestion.
Judges encourage this kind of teamwork as long as it is fair to the accused. It saves Court and admin time and provides the guilty party with a less severe sentence.
Crowns and Judges aren't elected in Canada so there is less push to go overly hard and win by any means necessary.
Generally, criminal Court is a Judge, a Crown, and a public or private defense lawyer all working together (but also mindful of the defense's legal obligation to go hard for their client and the Crown's to objectively administer the criminal justice system, and all 3 have to stay on the right side of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms). The accused are often frequent flyers and this isn't their first rodeo. You try to balance punishment with not wrecking any chance for rehab back into society.
Again, this is just my two cents having done the work. Could this prosecutor be over confident? Sure. But, that's usually the reason for a baseless plea deal not under confidence in your ability to go to trial. Because public defenders may be overworked but they aren't incompetent. If you offer their client a spanking you can't back up in Court they will tell you to kick rocks.
For now, his lawyer will review the plea, determine if it should be rejected, accepted, or if changes are made will it be acceptable to all parties. Nader can take their advice or not.
If there was no potential in this plea, usually, via communication about the file the defense would have told the Crown a plea is not on the table. Again, maybe the Crown and defense are not in regular communication on their shared files but my experience is you are in regular communication.
I can't speak for these lawyers, I can only speak to how I, and the majority of my colleagues on either side of the aisle conducted ourselves.
Sadly, recidivism rates are high. Nader's been to jail once so statistically speaking he is way more likely to go back there at some point than live out his days without interaction with the justice system. Even if it isn't this case that lands him there.
ETA: In Criminal matters the prosecution is obligated to disclose all evidence collected to the defence, especially exculpatory evidence (evidence the accused is not guilty) as soon as the Crown is aware such evidence exists. The defence is not obligated to share any exculpatory evidence it found independent of the police investigation to the Crown. The defence can suprise the hell out of the Crown...the Crown would be violating the Charter if they did it.
All this to say Nader's lawyer has seen the Crown's case already and knows its weaknesses and strengths.