What role does judge have in plea bargaining?
Several weeks ago the trial of a prominent local civic leader ended abruptly with a guilty plea. While a mid-trial plea is not unusual, how this one came about was. Before the trial started, the judge refused to accept a plea that included 9 years in prison, and restitution. Apparently, the judge indicated he was not going to accept any plea that did not include at least 15 years in prison. At the time though, that was not even a possibility; the State had dismissed several counts that reduced the charges from a first degree felony to a third degree, and therefore the maximum punishment possible was ten years.
The judge was upset with the State for dismissing the charges, and accused them of trying to circumvent his authority. He eventually gave in, and at a break told the parties he was willing to reconsider the plea agreement. After additional negotiations, she accepted what appeared to be the original agreement.
The case raises questions about what role the judge has or should play in plea bargaining. The law is fairly clear that a judge cannot participate in plea bargaining; the question is when a judge steps over the bounds. A judge has the ultimately authority to accept or reject a plea agreement, so there was no problem with the judge refusing to accept the agreement. A judge walks a fine line when he states why he won't accept an agreement, especially when he indicates what he will accept. The line is far from clear, but at some point a court will declare a judge became too involved in the plea negotiations.
Why can't a judge take part in plea bargaining? The most basic reason is the inequality in power; neither side wants to alienate the judge who is presiding over the case. Another reason is based on the division of functions in the criminal justice system; the judge is supposed to be impartial, and not take sides. When the judge takes part in plea bargaining he comes down in favor of one side - usually its on the prosecution side. That position has to be based on assumptions about the case, which may or may not be accurate. Also, a judge should be neutral; that neutrality is questioned when he takes a position on plea bargaining. If negotiations fall through, the court's decisions may be questioned since he has already indicated his position on the case.
The division of functions also means the State controls what to charge. In this case, there was nothing improper about the State dismissing charges. They knew the facts, and based on that knowledge would have an opinion on what a proper resolution should be. If someone doesn't like the decision, there is a political solution; you can not re-elect the prosecutor. The judge may not like the decision, but their job is to judge the case brought before them. They cannot, and should not, tell the State what charges to file. In this case.
The criminal justice system functions smoothly most of the time. It can fall apart though when one of the parties steps outside their role. When judges side with either the prosecution or defense, there are problems. The job of a judge is to be neutral and impartial; it is not to see that someone is prosecuted, or avoids punishment.
I'm sure there is more to the story in this case, as there are in most cases. While it should play no part in a judge's decision making, public sentiment appears to be equally divided; some think she got off too easy, while some think she was punished too harshly. Perhaps that is the definition of a fair and reasonable resolution.
