Post-Conviction Relief for Immigrants

(B)  Judicial Coercion.  Coercion may result when the judge impermissibly participates in the plea bargaining process.  Federal courts are prohibited from participating in plea bargaining.[416]  This rule was violated when a district judge discussed the probable consequences of trial versus plea, and when the defendant indicated he might want to go to trial, the judge asked whether he was sure he wanted to do that.  These facts required reversal of the conviction and a remand with directions to permit withdrawal of the plea.  The court of appeal held that judicial participation in plea bargaining “so corrodes the plea bargaining process” that no amount of corrective procedures may neutralize it.[417]

            Likewise, the court’s actions and comments during a plea colloquy can amount to coercion, thus negating the legality of the guilty plea.  The California Supreme Court has declared invalid a waiver of the right to a jury trial, where the trial court informed the defendant that he would receive “some benefit” if he waived his right to a jury trial, although the court did not specify what that benefit would be.[418]  The court found that the promise of some unspecified benefit presented a “substantial danger of unintentional coercion,” thus, rendering the waiver involuntary.[419]

[416] F.R.Crim.P. 11(e)(1).

[417] United States v. Rodriguez, 197 F.3d 156 (5th Cir. 1999).

[418] People v. Collins, 26 Cal.4th 297 (2001).

[419] Id., citing People v. Orin, 13 Cal.3d 937, 943 (1975).