Hofstra Law Review


Over the years, a pattern has emerged where judges routinely engage in practices that violate the constitutional rights of the defendants who come before them, and which run counter to the ethical conduct that we have a right to expect and demand from those empowered to engage in critical decisions concerning the liberty of our citizens. The Supreme Court, when it held that plea bargaining between a prosecutor and defense counsel did not violate the defendant's constitutional rights, offered a caveat: "Of course, the agents of the State may not produce a plea by actual or threatened physical harm or by mental coercion overbearing the will of the defendant." The Court must realize what is patently clear: in at least some situations, judicial involvement in plea negotiations can constitute mental coercion. The most appropriate way of dealing with that possibility is to adopt a prophylactic rule, a "bright-line" prohibition. Such a ban on the judge negotiating a plea with the defendant exists in the federal courts, the time is long overdue for it to apply to the state courts as well.

Included in

Law Commons



To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.