A common practice in our county court is for judges to tell defendants what they are likely to sentence them to if they go to trial and lose, vs. what they'd get if they copped a plea. Today a judge told a defendant in an underage-sex sting operated by the sheriff's department that she'd sentence him to 60-75 years if he went to trial and lost, but would give him time served (275 days) and 3 years probation if he pleaded out.
That strikes me as coercion, plain and simple.
This would form the basis (if the defendant elected to take a trial and lost) for an appeal to modify the sentence due to an abuse of the discretionary aspects of sentencing. It is improper for a judge to tell a defendant that he would impose a particular sentence, based on the decision to take a trial. Such a judge is prejudging the facts, and actually should be removed from the case.
