I assume that what I am about to describe takes place in real life; I see it on TV Police Dramas all the time :D.
The police pick up a criminal (let’s call him Ralph) for a drug-related offense (let’s say). They then decide to negotiate with Ralph, offering to “over-look” his drug offense if he tells them what they need to know about Harvey, his prostitute-murdering friend. So, even though it means breaking the “code of street honor :rolleyes:,” Ralph goes with the deal and turns Harvey into the fuzz.
I have a few questions:
[list=1]
[li]Are the police really allowed to make deals like this? They get to decide who should and should not be charged with crimes? They get to decide which crime is “worse?”[/li][li]What is to stop the police from breaking the deal? Why not tell Ralph whatever he wants to hear, nail Harvey, then nail Ralph? (I know that some of you will say that, if they do that, then the next criminal won’t be likely to negotiate in a similar manner. Do you think that is really a risk?)[/li][/list=1]
It happens all the time. Do something wrong on the road, lights start flashing, and a half hour later, “Well, it looks like all your registration and insurance is ok, so I’ll let you go this time, but be careful, ok?”
What I meant was, sure they have the option to let you off the hook even though you’re definitely in the wrong.
But the other part of the question does bother me, as it does sdimbert. Namely, can they welch out of a deal they have agreed to?
[hijack]My understanding is that the feds did break the plea-bargain agreement with Jonathan Pollard, who pleaded guilty in exchange for (I think) a 5-10 year sentence, and then they gave him life anyway. For more info, see for example, http://www.jonathanpollard.org/1999/100699.htm [/hijack]
It’s simple: if they welsh on the deal, no one’s going to make a deal with them the next time. That is a big reason to follow through. Deals are part of the tools of the trade, and you don’t want to jeopardize the use of that tool.
Also, they have to have the D.A. agree. If they promise Ralph he’ll walk and the D.A. says “no,” Ralph’s stuck. That’s not as bad for the cops, since what they should be promising is to ask the D.A. for special treatment in exchange for testimony. Again, it is in the D.A.'s best interest to go along, but there may be cases where he doesn’t want to.
Finally, any plea bargain is between the D.A. and the defendant. The judge is the one who determines the sentence, and has the option to give a greater or lesser sentence (thought they usually go along with the D.A.'s recommendation for the same reason everyone else has – a vested interest in the need of deals in order to get justice).
It’s true that the cops can’t be held to a deal - the Commonwealth or District Attorney is the one with the negotiating power.
A plea bargain is analyzed under the principles of contract law. If the Commonwealth breaches it, the accused can force them to specific performance, or be placed in the same situation he was before the plea was struck.
For example, if I agree to plead guilty to one count of simple mopery in exchange for twelve counts of aggravated mopery being dropped, the Commonwealth cannot later charge me with any of those counts. If the Commonwealth agrees to a joint recommendation of six months with time served, they cannot show up at sentencing and ask for a year.
The remedy depends on the breach. If they breach their sentencing recommendation, for example, I have the right to be resentenced in front of a different judge. I can enforce this right by appealing the sentence, and letting the appellate court order the resentencing.