- Joined
- Dec 15, 2012
- Messages
- 19,718
- Reaction score
- 12,265
- Location
- Lawn Guyland
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Posted in the Constitution subforum because the judge's decision is written in terms of Constitutional issues and not strictly legal ones.
Federal District Judge Joseph Goodwin of the Southern District of West Virginia is making it a policy of not accepting plea bargains as a matter of course. He is demanding prosecutors and defendants provide reasons that go beyond simply wanting to avoid a trial. His overriding reason for doing so it because, in his view, the right to a trial by jury is a right shared by all people and not one that belongs only to the accused. The people have a right to participate in juries and by not being able to do so, since something like 95% of cases end in a plea bargain, there is no effective check on government power and justice system becomes one more bureaucracy. As he states:
The decision is a worthwhile and very easy read. It can be found here: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11196158518995119861
I, for one, applaud the man. We need more judges to do exactly this.
Federal District Judge Joseph Goodwin of the Southern District of West Virginia is making it a policy of not accepting plea bargains as a matter of course. He is demanding prosecutors and defendants provide reasons that go beyond simply wanting to avoid a trial. His overriding reason for doing so it because, in his view, the right to a trial by jury is a right shared by all people and not one that belongs only to the accused. The people have a right to participate in juries and by not being able to do so, since something like 95% of cases end in a plea bargain, there is no effective check on government power and justice system becomes one more bureaucracy. As he states:
A common view of the grand jury is that it functions to merely check whether the prosecutor has probable cause to believe that an individual has committed the alleged crime.[32] At minimum, such a check protects everyone from inappropriate prosecutorial action, such as harassment or malice, because it prevents the prosecutor from initiating a criminal case where there is insufficient evidence to establish probable cause that the individual has committed the alleged crime.[33]
Beyond an evidentiary gatekeeping function, however, the grand jury plays an additional role in checking government power.[34] One commentator has gone so far as to label the grand jury as a "quasi-legislative body" and "a grassroots political `fourth branch' of government."[35] This comes from the grand jury's absolute discretion to indict or not indict.[36] "Where the grand jury truly adds value is through its ability to exercise robust discretion not to indict where probable cause nevertheless exists. . . ."[37] As another commentator details, colonial grand juries "did not refuse to indict because of a lack of proof that the accused had violated a criminal statute. Rather, they refused because they fundamentally disagreed with the government's decision to enforce these laws at all."[38]
The grand jury's structural check on the government reaches all three branches of government.[39] With respect to the judiciary, "jurisdiction cannot be exercised in felony and capital cases without the grand jury's consent."[40] With respect to the executive, "[t]he grand jury may frustrate the [e]xecutive's efforts to prosecute an individual," and it "may exercise its discretion to send the [e]xecutive a message about its preferred allocation of law enforcement and prosecutorial resources."[41] With respect to the legislature, the grand jury "determin[es] when conduct that Congress has proscribed will be subject to criminal prosecution."[42] As such a powerful check on the government, the grand jury is meant to provide additional protection for the individual threatened by the government with a serious deprivation of his liberty.[43]
Finally, with the near disappearance of the jury trial,[44] the grand jury is the last vestige of the voice of the people in their criminal justice system.[45] When the grand jury returns a true bill, it conveys to the prosecutor, and the general public, the will of the people that the accused be compelled to answer the accusation(s) of criminal conduct.[46] A true bill returned by the grand jury affirms the people's belief in the appropriateness of the law being applied and the importance of holding the individual accountable for breaking it.[47] The grand jury indictment functions as a "democratic force within the prosecutorial function."[48]
The decision is a worthwhile and very easy read. It can be found here: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11196158518995119861
I, for one, applaud the man. We need more judges to do exactly this.