Another question, because I’m not quite following this. There’s an exchange at the end of the quoted section:
First of all, it sounds like the judge is asking 2 entirely different questions. The first question is whether or not he should be required to “consider” a plea agreement, to which the attorney responds, “yes.” Then the judge, supposedly clarifying, asks a completely different question; whether the rule suggests he must “undertake” (I presume to mean, under the standard definition [though perhaps there’s a different legal one], to agree to, or to commit to) a plea agreement and “obviate” an entire trial.
So what was actually challenged and upheld; that the judge had the right not to even consider a plea agreement at all, merely because a trial had already begun, or that he wasn’t obligated to accept it, and could rule that the trial should proceed? In fact, it sounds like the appellate court ruled on yet a third issue; that the judge was within his legal rights not to even consider the plea because it wasn’t submitted in writing according to the rules.
So what, then, is the answer to the 1st question – can a judge refuse to hear a plea at all just because a trial has started and for no other reason? Don’t defendents enter into plea agreements at various times during trial proceedings, “thereby obviating [the] entire trial” all the time? Or is that just on Law and Order?
Sounds like the judge is just being an ass. A defendant may withdraw his plea of not guilty and enter a guilty plea at any time prior to a verdict. Judges are not bound by any term in the agreement and may impose a sentence notwithstanding the agreement between the prosecutor and the defendant. But then as stated above a defendant may withdraw a guilty plea if the sentence deviates from the terms of the agreement.
Right. The appellate court chose to ignore the commentary about not accpeting a plea at any time after trial started, and focused on the fact that the plea was not in writing. The idea that the attorneys involved would have felt free to submit a plea in writing after that conversation is… farfetched.
There is no rule forbidding the Commonwealth and the accused from negotiating a plea during trial, or stopping the judge from accepting it during trial. It happens all the time. Someone initially reluctant to take a plea may hear a particularly vigorous performance by a Commonwealth witness and decide he’d better take the deal. Sometimes the Commonwealth case doesn’t look as good as it did before trial started and the ACA will come back with a better offer. It happens every freaking day.
The thing is…
Some judges are asses. Some judges are horrendously incompetent. I knew a judge who would glance at his clerk for clues on which way he should rule. It was an open secret.
The difference here is that the ass-ery, if you will, ended up blatantly on the record, and was affirmed by the intermediate appellate court. My experience with those fine gentleman, back in the day, was that they were NOT asses.
This is why I’m so amazed at this case. Little BS power plays happen all the time at the trial court level. For this particular power play to get the sanction of the appellate court is what’s got me crazy.
I agree. But I don’t see reversible error here. I mean the judge is never bound by the terms of the plea agreement. In this case the judge knew that he would not sentence according to the terms and that if he accepted the plea and imposed a higher sentence that the plea would be withdrawn. Therefore going through the motions of entering a plea would just prolong the inevitable. The judge is still an ass but apparently not a reversible ass.
That rule provides, inter alia, that if the court rejects the plea agreement, and the defendant chooses to withdraw his plea of guilty,his case will be heard by another judge, unless the parties agree otherwise. This prevents a trial judge from being “poisoned” by the knowledge that the accused pled guilty.
So if the judge had followed the rules, at least the guy could have had his trial before a different judge. Normally, I’d agree that such a failure is not reversible error. Given this particular judge’s antipathy, however…
Of course, the Court of Appeals found there was no antipathy; they kicked the assignment of error on the failure to recuse.
Thanks for the further clarification, askeptic and Bricker. That’s exactly what I thought, which is why I couldn’t figure out what this judge must have been smoking to have replied the way he did during that exchange. Surely he must know the rules, yet snidely dared the attorney to challenge him on them.
I’m no attorney (obviously - duh!), but regardless of what the judge might have thought about the expected outcome of allowing the plea to be entered, rejecting the sentencing recommendation for a longer term and the plea being withdrawn, that’s not what the he put forth as his reason for going ahead with the trial, nor was it the reason the appellate court upheld his ruling. And just because something might have gone a certain way in the process, doesn’t mean you can just rule willy-nilly such that the end result is the same as what you think might’ve resulted had it played out by the actual rules. IOW, the ends don’t justify the means, and, if I’m understanding this right, in this case the means didn’t go by the rules, so not only was the judge in error, so was the appellate court.
Except, in this case, it doesn’t look like a plea agreement was ever submitted for review. You just have both sides saying, “We’ve come to a plea agreement”, right?
The problem with that was pointed out by Bricker: After those comments by the judge, there’s no way the attorneys would have felt free to submit it. And there was time to prepare and submit it. Trials have breaks.
Aha! Well that explains it all right there. He refused to even entertain the plea agreement because he knew that insodoing there was a likelihood that the accused would get his new judge afterall, and he’d be damned if he’d let this guy “win.”
But now I’ve thought of another question. . . The judge refuses to “consider” a plea agreement and insists the trial proceed, so the plea agreement isn’t even officially on the record. Is there a break, during which time they could have put the agreement in writing and tried submitting it per the rules? At that point, there are no further legal grounds for the judge to deny even hearing it, right? We already know that the lame “the trial has already started” argument is bullshit, and so do the attorneys. So wasn’t the commonwealth and defense counsel negligent in not putting it in writing and officially entering it into the proceeding per the rules? Does the defendent have a case for appeal based on inadequacy of counsel based on this omission?
But why not? They MUST know the rules and that the nonsense about the trial already starting wouldn’t pass scrutiny if they had an official agreement in writing to submit. Are you saying these guys were too chickenshit to cross the judge by even trying? That just doesn’t make any sense.
But if the attorneys try to submit it after the comments by the judge, and he doesn’t even look at it, they have grounds for appeal. If they don’t even try to properly submit it, then what can the appeals court do?
You’re right. Even if you know you’ll get your ass handed to you, as a lawyer you have to protect your record. I get why they didn’t draft and submit a written plea agreement, but they still should have drafted one and told the judge they needed to submit it for the record. Which, frankly, would have signalled strongly the intent to appeal, and the judge may have reconsidered his rash actions.
Not the commonwealth attorney. It’s not his job to insist on a plea.
Defense counsel should have protected his record better. He should have insisted on making an offer of proof with a written plea agreement at the first break.
The problem was that this judge had already punished him by taking away a source of income for him by removing him from the appointments list. If he pushed this matter, then maybe the judge punishes him with the next five guys he repesents.
Yes, his duty to his client should outweigh all that.
But a man’s gotta feed his family, and believe me: if he was relying on court appoint fees, his family wasn’t eating lobster too many nights. I think he was intimidated into not making his record properly.
Keep in mind too that the Commonwealth’s Attorney may have been discouraged from approving the plea after he heard the judge’s reaction.
Listen: at trial, there are a thousand little breaks that a judge can give you or not give you. A savvy judge can torpedo you with rulings that will easily survive appeal. If a judge has shown that he’s willing to play that game, and you’re an Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney that has to appear before him every other week… do you really want to get on his bad side?