OK, I hate to see a judge plea bargain with a defendantor his/her attorney. I think it is unethical, interferes with the constitutional authority of the prosecutor, and demeans the impartial appearance of the court. In federal court, it is actually expressly against the Rules of Procedure. What about such a rule for state courts?

John Bradley
District Attorney
Williamson County, Texas

This form of plea bargaining must take place in the presence of the prosecutor. Canon 3B(8) of Code of Judicial Conduct. If the judge is not going to approve the bargain arrived at by the parties, is it not helpful for him to describe the type bargain he might approve (assuming the prosecutor would still like to resolve the case without a trial)? Are you referring to some other type of input or involvement by the judge? Maybe it is art. 26.13(a)(2), C.C.P. which needs to be changed, since I guess it is what makes the judge ultimately responsible for the penalty assessed rather than the parties (contrary to most civil suits). I have often wondered why this responsibility is placed in the judge, since it conflicts with the judgment of the prosecutor (who generally has a much better feel for the value, worth, likely outcome, whatever you want to call it of the case). The only apparent purposes are to prevent the prosecutor from being too lenient or shirking his duty in any given case or to allow the judge to put pressure on the prosecutor to treat an individual, who has found favor with the court for whatever reason, differently. In many counties the judge's role in accepting plea bargains is used as a device to control which or how many cases are pushed to trial. The judge may favor jury trials for any number of reasons as the preferred method for disposition. Those prosecutors who purportedly refuse to engage in plea bargaining necessarily force the judges to play a role in resolving a case. How would such a prohibition affect that practice?