NCJ Number
133314
Journal
American Criminal Law Review Volume: 27 Issue: 2 Dated: (1989) Pages: 231-288
Date Published
1989
Length
58 pages
Annotation
This article examines the relationship between the Federal sentencing guidelines and plea negotiation practices during the 15 months that preceded the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Mistretta v. United States.
Abstract
The article first describes the structure and goals of Federal sentencing reform and acknowledges the concern that negotiated pleas might subvert the goals of sentencing reform. The actions taken by Congress, the U.S. Sentencing Commission, and the Justice Department in reaction to the potential difficulties perceived by these institutions are then reviewed. Part II describes the methodology used to investigate anticipated and unanticipated effects of early plea negotiation practices under the sentencing guidelines. Exploratory interview data from four nonrandomly selected jurisdictions suggest that in the majority of cases, even during the pre-Mistretta period, compliance with the guideline system was the predominant pattern; however, the guidelines were still circumvented in an identifiable minority of cases. When circumvention occurred, it was accomplished through date bargaining, charge bargaining, fact bargaining, or guideline-factor bargaining. In the post-Mistretta period, it will be critical to evaluate the impact the Federal sentencing guidelines will have on charging and plea practices. 196 footnotes