How does it work?
I’ve been following this case.
If I understand correctly, she pled guilty with the understanding she would receive probation. The judge sentenced her to some jail time. Are judges not bound by these agreements? How do plea bargains usually work?
I can’t read the link you provided.
Generally, it depends on the jurisdiction. Judges aren’t bound by the prosecutions offer of a plea bargain, but often they have to warn the defendant if they don’t intend to to take the prosecution’s recommendation. They almost always do, though.
Remember the movie “Con Air”? Nick Cage’s character gets sentenced to prison when he plea bargains to get probation. In real life federal court, the judge will admonish you if he doesn’t intend to follow the U.S. Attorney’s recommendation. He might have been being tried in state court, I don’t remember, but that wouldn’t gibe with his being transported to a federal facility on Con Air. Actually, a lot about that flick didn’t gibe…
Judges are not really required to honor the deal struck by the prosecution and the defendant, but in practice, it’s important to the system that they do. Most of the judicial system functions on what might be considered “gentlemen’s understandings.” This is because, if anyone lost faith in “this is how things happen,” the system would most likely break down. and as pravnik stated, I doubt a judge would sentence against a plea agreement and not give the defendant an opportunity to take back his/her plea, though I know of no requirement that they do so.
For instance, in your example - defendant agrees to plead guilty for probation, DA recommends probation. Judge refuses to honor the deal. Well, no defendant is going to believe that a deal offered by the DA before that judge will be honored, so no defendant makes a deal. So either (a) most defendants will take their chances with a trial, or (b) DAs ask cases to be removed from that judge’s court (lest the backlog of defendants demanding trials inundate them), or © both. In my court (I was once a DA), we had anywhere from 30-60 new cases every DAY. Upwards of 99% of them eventually settled for a plea bargain. We would have had no way to try 30-60 cases a day before a jury (which is every defendant’s right [with exceptions not necessary to discuss here]). Everybody understood this, and everybody played by the understanding. If one side or the other suddenly decided to “quit playing,” chaos would ensue. But all sides work to reinforce the game, and keep things moving.
In this case, the judge expected something more from the deal, so he can say that the defendant didn’t keep her part of the bargain. Because this case looks to be pretty political (I haven’t followed it), it can be said to fall outside the “game,” and so the plea bargain process can continue to have some credibility in this judge’s court. OTOH, don’t expect too many midwives to accept plea bargains in his court…
It’s worth pointing out that although a plea bargain is subject to the judge’s approval, it is effectively a contract between prosecution and defense. So if the prosecution fails to live up to their side – for example, by failing to recommend a particular sentence – then, in general, the accused is entitled to withdraw his guilty plea.
Different jurisdictions have different rules. In Virginia, part of the colloquy – the series of questions a judge poses before accepting a guilty plea – includes the notice that the court is not bound by any sentencing recommendation. As Redhawke.the.bard notes, however, it’s quite unusual for a judge to do something outside the bargain, and is usually a creature of politically-sensitive cases.
Here in Ontario, it works like this. Before the plea is entered, the judge warns the accused that a plea bargain is not binding on the judge. The crown may have a position on sentence that is open (you can ask for whatever you want, but this is what we will ask for), or closed (we will agree to this position, but only if you join us on it). The judge has a duty to impose a sentence that he considers just. Usually, if he endorses the joint submission or imposes a sentece between (inclusive) the Crown and defence positions. Where he feels he can’t, and he wants to impose a lesser sentence, he does so, and the defence is happy and the Crown usually has better things to do than appeal. Where he wants to impose a greater sentence, sometimes he just imposes the sentence, but many judges will give the accused the option of vacating the plea. The accused then comes back on a later day and tries again before a different judge.
G’day
Here in New South Wales plea bargaining is illegal, and the judge would certainly not be bound by the terms of any collusive conspiracy between the Crown and the defendant. It is up to the judge to decide after the accused pleads what consideration to give for a ‘guilty’ plea.
I think the situation is the same in other Australian jurisdictions.
Regards,
Agback