An interesting article in the New York Law Journal about two judges, two case, where deals were made, but things went awry. What makes this curious is that the two judges involved, Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Albert Tomei and Nassau County County Court Judge John Kase went in opposite directions, showing the pitfalls of plea deals that go wrong.
First, the common. Plea deals were negotiated and both judges approved of the deals, including the sentence to be imposed. While this is not the practice in other parts of New York, and other parts of the country, this is the way pleas are typically handled in New York City and the neighboring ‘burbs. Absolutely normal stuff.
In Judge Tomei’s case, the Kings County District Attorney caught heat for the deal it cut on an 18 to 54 year sentence for an ex-dentist. The victims, after getting wind of the deal, were outraged and the DA collapsed under the pressure. By the way, if 18 to 54 sounds pretty heavy, note that the ex-dentist was convicted for illegally harvesting and selling body parts from more than 1000 corpses. It’s not like he stole a gold filling.
In the case before Judge Kase, the court reneged on a 1 to 3 year deal for an ex-lawyer who stole $376,000 from clients. After hearing the victim impact statement, the judge couldn’t go through with it.
In the Brooklyn case, Judge Tomei enforced the deal, refusing to let the District Attorney change its mind and holding them to the “contract” that was made and performed.
The Nassau case had the opposite outcome, as the court always retains the authority, should information come into his possession that changes his view of the propriety of the deal, to withdraw his approval, let the defendant withdraw his plea, and start over as if the deal never happened.
From a practical perspective, both present some problems. First, everyone, but most particularly the defendant, relies upon the deal. The defendant pleads guilty. The defendant allocutes, admitting his legal and factual guilt. The defendant makes whatever arrangements are necessary to comply with his end of the agreement. The plea may require the defendant to give away confidential information, or take other actions, that inure to his detriment. To then have the rug pulled out from under him is a problem.
To allow the District Attorney to walk away from a deal because he changed his mind, regardless of the how or why, is wrong. Whatever it is that impacts the district attorney afterward could have been determined in advance. In this instance, the fault for not getting feedback from victims before negotiating a deal rests entirely on the District Attorney’s shoulders. There is no reason to shift the burden onto the defendant.
But the same it true for the court. The judge could have withheld his approval of the plea until he considered all factors, but instead he moved forward. Contracts are formed in two ways, affirmative consideration and detrimental reliance. The defendant most certainly relied to his detriment, and he can never be truly restored to the status quo ante.
But the countervailing legal consideration is that the judge owes a larger duty to the community to do justice, even if that means burning the defendant’s deal when it would appear to the judge that his approval was ill-advised. It’s a tough call, and I have to assume that Judge Kase did not make the decision to reneg lightly. But the resultant harm to the defendant happens nonetheless.
Be warned when you cut a deal that may seem too good to be true. While the DA may not have the ability to stop the plea bargaining train, the judge always does. To the defendant, it doesn’t matter who puts on the brakes.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Was any of this reneging post-acceptance of the plea and pre-sentencing? Or did they both happen during the plea colloquy and prior to the judge entering the plea (or accepting the plea or whatever local variant you have)?
Both were post-plea, pre-sentence.
Neither one of them can be legally rescinded. In addition to the Due Process (Santobello) violations, there may be double jeopardy problems as well.
Santobello applies to the prosecutor’s specific performance of the agreement, which is why Judge Tomei refused to allow them to change the deal. But Santobello doesn’t preclude the judge from changing his mind. Note the mechanics; The judge doesn’t rescind the plea, but informs the defendant that he cannot sentence him to the agreed-upon term, and offers the defendant the option of accepting a greater sentence or withdrawing his plea of guilty.
Nope, Santobello turns on the reasonable expectation of the defendant. Here, a plea has been accepted.
The judge can refuse to accept the plea if he finds the sentence inappropriate. Once the plea has been accepted, there is a conviction. The judge cannot then “undo” the conviction. To do so would be to convict him again for the same offense, hence violating double jeopardy.
Back to Santobello: It depends on what the specific case-law is in your state, but in a lot of states, “court indicated sentences” are also given the same weight as offers by the prosecutor. Additionally, if the prosecutor does not object to the court’s “offer”, then they have implicitly agreed to that as well.
No. Santobello has to do with the obligations of the prosecutor, not the court. The Supreme Court synopsis:
In NY, there is no conviction until sentence has been imposed. Also, the pleas in NYC are negotiated between the attorneys. The judges are usually not involved, and they accept the deal as the attorneys offer it.
Yes, the specific language in Santobello is about the prosecutor, but that’s because those were the facts of that case. The underlying principle is that when a defendant is induced to plead guilty by the promise of a specific sentence, then that sentence must be imposed.
It matters not that the sentence was one originally offered by the prosecutor, or indicated by the Court in pre-trial negotiations.