NCJ Number
54818
Journal
Fordham Law Review Volume: 46 Issue: 6 Dated: (MAY 1978) Pages: 1242-1272
Date Published
1978
Length
31 pages
Annotation
PROCEDURAL RULES GOVERNING THE ACCEPTANCE OF GUILTY PLEAS ENTERED IN FEDERAL COURTS ARE SCRUTINIZED.
Abstract
RULE 11 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURES GOVERNS GUILTY PLEA PROCEEDINGS. IN 1975, PURSUANT TO A PROPOSAL BY THE U.S. SUPREME COURT, CONGRESS EXTENSIVELY AMENDED THAT RULE. PART OF THE AMENDMENT IS A PROVISION THAT DEFENDANTS WHO PLEAD GUILTY MAY BE PLACED UNDER OATH FOR SUBSEQUENT QUESTIONING BY THE COURT AND MAY BE SUBJECT TO PERJURY CHARGES IF THEY TESTIFY FALSELY. A RELATED PROVISION REQUIRES THAT JUDGES EXPLAIN TO DEFENDANTS THAT IF THEY PLEAD GUILTY THEY MAY BE ASKED QUESTIONS UNDER OATH AND THAT THEY MAY BE PROSECUTED FOR PERJURY IF THEY LIE. THIS EXPLANATION MUST BE INCLUDED IN THE LITANY OF WARNINGS JUDGES GIVE DEFENDANTS DURING PLEA PROCEEDINGS REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE JUDGE ACTUALLY INTENDS TO PLACE THE DEFENDANT UNDER OATH. AN ANALYSIS OF THESE PROVISIONS, THEIR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, AND THEIR APPLICATION IN COURT IN THE CONTEXT OF OTHER RULE 11 AMENDMENTS CONCLUDES THAT THE PRACTICE OF PLACING DEFENDANTS UNDER OATH WHEN THEY PLEAD GUILTY SHOULD BE ABANDONED. WHILE IT IS UNLIKELY THAT THE PRACTICE PER SE COULD BE CHALLENGED SUCCESSFULLY ON CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS, IT MAY PRESENT CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEMS IN INDIVIDUAL CASES. IN ADDITION, THE THREAT OF A PERJURY SANCTION MAY DISCOURAGE SOME DEFENDANTS FROM ENTERING INTELLIGENT AND ADVANTAGEOUS GUILTY PLEAS, THEREBY DEFEATING A PRINCIPAL PURPOSE OF THE RULE 11 AMENDMENTS. ABANDONING THE PRACTICE OF PLACING GUILTY PLEADERS UNDER OATH WOULD OBVIATE THE NEED FOR THE RELATED WARNING, ELIMINATING PROBLEMS POSED BY THAT PROVISION. IT IS FURTHER CONCLUDED THAT, IN AN ATTEMPT TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF UNIFORMED DEFENDANTS BY AMENDING THE RULE GOVENING PLEA PROCEEDINGS, CONGRESS AND THE COURTS HAVE CURTAILED SOME RIGHTS OF COUNSELED AND INTELLIGENT DEFENDANTS WHO WANT TO ENTER ADVANTAGEOUS PLEAS OF GUILTY WITHOUT BEING SUBJECTED TO EXTENSIVE PERSONAL INQUISITION BY THE COURT. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED--LKM)