Isn't this nothing less than judges seeking to influence prosecutorial discretion? Imagine this happening in Texas.

Judges Revolt Over Death Penalty
In Brooklyn, U.S. Jurists Are Balking

By JOSEPH GOLDSTEIN
Staff Reporter of the Sun
March 4, 2008


A revolt over capital punishment is brewing among Brooklyn's federal judges, who are appealing to Attorney General Mukasey to stem the rising number of death penalty trials over which they must preside.

Since the beginning of 2007, when the U.S. Courthouse in Brooklyn emerged as the hub of death penalty prosecutions in the Northeast, local federal judges have asked the Justice Department to reconsider decisions to seek the death penalty in four cases � nearly half the capital cases on the docket. Judges have no authority to force the Justice Department to withdraw capital charges. The judges framed their requests as just that, requests.

For full article see:
http://www.nysun.com/article/72219

JAS

New York likes to let judges interfere with prosecutorial discretion. Apparently NY judges have the ability to dismiss a case because a trial wouldn't be in the best interests of justice.

Maybe they should resign that lifetime appointment, with the great pay, benefits and retirement plan, if they can't stand the heat in the kitchen.

Otherwise, they need to keep from legislating from the bench and do their jobs and let juries do their jobs.

Think back to the recent thread about appointed vs. elected judges. There is no perfect system for selecting judges, but personally, I prefer the current system because it injects a certain level of accountability every four years.

Well said.

I'm wondering how they would feel if prosecutors in their courts announced to the media that they wished that the judges would rule a bit more in their favor? Not anything definite, just a "request."

No news here. Judges are often revolting. Sorry, just had to say that.

I think the headline overstates the issue. The judges are not opposing the death penalty on ideological grounds, but rather are requesting the justice department to withdraw death for issues of "legal economy." Death penalty cases are very expensive and time consuming, and particularly if the odds of success are very weak (as the article says some of the cases are) then I don't see why the judges don't "request" or "suggest" some alternative. Judges are frequently "suggesting" that plea bargains be made or that certain charges, motions, etc. be changed or dropped. Prosecutors nor defense attorneys are particularly fond of such prodding, but it is a part of our current system.

In a sense, the judges may just be warning the prosecutors "You want capital cases, fine. But don't come whining when the dockets get backed up." Likewise, "Legislators, these cases are more expensive so you'd better be ready to pony up the dough." I don't think any judge wants the proverbial wheels falling of the bus while it is moving -- as in Geogia recently.

Our notions of "justice" are often absolute, but in the real world we are often driven by cost-benefit trade-offs. We may have the largest and most expensive legal system in the world, but we still must pick and choose. And since people disagree on what to pick and what not, we get politics...