NCJ Number
66770
Date Published
1980
Length
11 pages
Annotation
THE ROLE OF TRIAL JUDGES IN THE PLEA-NEGOTIATION PROCESS IS ANALYZED, WITH CONSIDERATION OF WHETHER JUDGES SHOULD PLAY A PARTICIPATORY OR ONLY A SUPERVISORY ROLE IN THESE NEGOTIATIONS.
Abstract
JUDICIAL PARTICIPATION IS ANY DIRECT INVOLVEMENT WITH PROSECUTORS, DEFENSE ATTORNEYS, OR DEFENDANTS IN PREPLEA DISCUSSION INVOLVING CHARGE OR SENTENCE CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE DEFENDANT IN EXCHANGE FOR A PLEA. CONSIDERED IN THIS STUDY WERE THE POSITIONS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS AND STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS ON THE ADVISABILITY OF JUDICIAL PARTICIPATION, THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF SUCH PARTICIPATION BASED ON DATA COLLECTED IN A 3-YEAR NATIONAL STUDY OF PLEA-BARGAINING, AND THE ISSUE OF COERCION AND JUDICIAL PARTICIPATION IN PLEA-BARGAINING. IN GENERAL, THE STUDY SHOWED THAT JUDGES ARE EXPECTED TO SUPERVISE PLEA-BARGAINING AND THE QUILTY-PLEA PROCESS EFFECTIVELY TO ENSURE FAIRNESS AND DUE PROCESS FOR ALL PARTIES. THE MAJOR ADVISORY COMMISSION, THE FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, AND MANY STATE RULES WOULD HAVE BARRED JUDGES FROM PARTICIPATING IN PLEA DISCUSSIONS. THE OBJECTION MOST OFTEN CITED IS THAT THE POWER OF JUDGES IS SO GREAT THAT THEIR PRESENCE IN PLEA DISCUSSIONS WOULD RENDER THE PROCESS EXCESSIVELY COERCIVE FOR DEFENDANTS. RESEARCH SUGGESTS THAT ALTHOUGH THE GAINS FAR OUTWEIGH THE COSTS INVOLVED IN JUDICIAL INVOLVEMENT IN PLEA-BARGANING. FURTHERMORE, THE POTENTIALLY COERCIVE EFFECT OF DIRECT PARTICIPATION CAN BE CHECKED THROUGH LIMITING THE KIND OF ROLE JUDGES PLAY. TO PARTICIPATE DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN BECOMING AN ADVOCATE, A FEAR EXPRESSED BY OPPONENTS OF JUDICIAL PARTICIPATION. THE MOST EFFECTIVE APPROACH TO JUDICIAL SUPERVISION IS FOR JUDGES TO BE IN DIRECT CONTACT WITH THE PARTIES INVOLVED. SUCH AN APPROACH IS MORE LIKELY TO RESULT IN A PLEA-BARGANING SYSTEM THAT IS ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE PROCESS AS WELL AS THE PRODUCT. NINE REFERENCES ARE INCLUDED. (MPH)