NCJ Number
88740
Journal
Pepperdine Law Review Volume: 10 Issue: 1 Dated: (1982) Pages: 39-53
Date Published
1982
Length
15 pages
Annotation
The courts should be removed entirely from the plea bargaining process and returned to their proper role of disposition once the question of guilt has been resolved. California's law mandating judicial involvement in plea bargaining should be repealed.
Abstract
Section 1192.5 of the California Penal Code calls for the court to approve a contract made with a criminal defendant. Prior to the 1970 enactment of this provision, responsibility for both charge and settlement through plea bargaining rested with the district attorney. This law fails to consider realistically conditions in the criminal trial courts. No court has time to exhaustively explore individual cases because of the numerous plea bargained cases on the daily calendar, nor does it have the ability to discover the true reasons for the plea bargain. What actually occurs is cursory approval or rejection. Moreover, a bargained plea in a felony case is often taken in the municipal court which has no jurisdiction over the pleas from a sentencing standpoint. The matter is then referred to superior court for disposition, obscuring responsibility for the plea bargain. The superior court generally approves an agreement negotiated by the municipal court, further dulling the cutting edge of public accountability. Referrals back to the municipal court are costly for taxpayers already disenchanted with the entire plea bargaining process. Plea bargaining should remain totally in the hands of the public prosecutor and the defense counsel who know the evidence, are aware of external factors which might affect a trial, and are accountable to the public electorate and the defendant. The paper includes 48 footnotes.