To shift gears: I have a question for the law-literate folks here:
In this county, defendants accused of multiple felonies get a hearing before the judge who'll hear the trial--if it goes to trial. The judge tells the defendant what penalty he'll get if he goes to trial and is found guilty, or what he'll get if he pleads not guilty. Obviously the judge, like counterparts everywhere else in the US, wants to avoid a trial.
My question: do you think this is coercive, especially coming from the same judge who'll hear the trial? Does it imply that the judge's mind is already made up? Shouldn't plea possibilities be worked out between the prosecutor and the defense lawyer, and communicated to the defendant by his lawyer?
This is a very strange procedure. You are correct that plea agreements should be the result of a deliberative process between the prosecutor, who represents the state's interest and the defense counsel. A plea agreement takes into account many things, not the least of which is the prosecutor's assessment of obtaining a guilty verdict. And that rests on the reliability of witnesses on both sides, strength of physical evidence and any possible pretrial issues. The judge is not aware of any of this at arraignment. Therefore, the only job of the judge, who is presented with a plea agreement, is to approve or deny it. I should add that plea agreements can be creative and don't always specify the term of jail or probation.
It's certainly a ploy to encourage guilty pleas, but I can not see how a judge would commit to a sentence before hearing the testimony.
I recall a few times, however, where a judge offered some general, candid remarks in chambers that allowed us to avoid trial. He or she may have said that the case looked like probation or only a county sentence, which was enough for my client to plead. Other times the judge might lean on the prosecutor to get him or her to sweeten the deal. But I've never heard of a formal hearing to inform the defendant of specific sentences so early in the process.
