Some Reflections on Ethics and Plea Bargaining: An Essay in Honor of Fred Zacharias
R. Michael Cassidy
Boston College Law School
February 14, 2011
San Diego Law Review, Vol. 48, No.1, Winter 2011
Boston College Law School Legal Studies Research Paper No. 202
In this article the author explores what it means for a prosecutor to “do justice” in a plea bargaining context. Although the vast majority of criminal cases in the United States are resolved by guilty plea rather than by trial, ABA Model Rule 3.8, the special disciplinary rule applicable to prosecutors, has very little to say about plea bargaining. Scrutinizing the multiplicity of interests at stake in plea bargaining, the author suggests that a prosecutor’s primary objectives during negotiations should be efficiency, equality, autonomy, and transparency. After defining each of these terms, the author identifies several troublesome and recurring practices employed by prosecutors in the plea bargaining context that in his view violate a prosecutor’s duty to “do justice,” but yet presently are entirely unregulated. He then demonstrates how a focus on efficiency, equality, autonomy and transparency might help prosecutors avoid these ethical minefields.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 19
Keywords: efficiency, equality, autonomy, transparency, prosecutors, plea bargaining, negotiation, ABA Model Rule 3.8s
JEL Classification: K40Accepted Paper Series
Date posted: August 9, 2010 ; Last revised: July 27, 2011
© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo7 in 0.250 seconds