On Point: 6. Judicial participation in

State v. Lavonte M. Price, 2014AP1189-CR, District 1, 2/13/15 (not recommended for publication); click here for briefs

This decision examines the line between a trial court’s active participation in the plea negotiation process, which Wisconsin law prohibits, and trial court’s comments, suggestions and lectures, which are permitted under Wisconsin law.  What the trial court did here was just fine, said the court of appeals.

United States. v. Anthony Davila, USSC No. 12-167, 6/13/13

United States Supreme Court decision, reversing United States v. Davila, 664 F.3d 1355 (11th Cir. 2011) (per curiam)

Rule 11(c)(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that parties may discuss and reach a plea agreement, but that the court “must not participate in these discussions.” In this case there is not dispute that a Magistrate Judge violated Rule 11(c)(1) by improperly participating in plea discussions by engaging in “repeated exhortations”

State v. Miguel E. Marinez, Jr., 2008 WI App 105, (AG’s) PFR filed 7/15/08; prior history: certification, denied 4/3/08
For Marinez: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶1        At issue here is whether a trial judge is prohibited from informing a defendant that the judge intends to exceed a sentencing recommendation in a plea agreement and offering the opportunity of plea withdrawal.

State v. Antoine T. Hunter, 2005 WI App 5
For Hunter: James R. Lucius

Issue: Whether the trial court’s observation to defendant, following denial of an assertedly “dispositive” suppression motion, that acquittal was “unlikely,” but that “coming forward and admitting your guilt” would provide “the opportunity to get some credit,” amounted to judicial participation in plea bargaining as banned by State v. Corey D. Williams,

State v. Corey D. Williams, 2003 WI App 116
For Williams: Michael J. Edmonds

Issue/Holding:

¶1.… We conclude that judicial participation in the bargaining process that precedes a defendant’s plea raises a conclusive presumption that the plea was involuntary. Therefore, we adopt a bright-line rule barring any form of judicial participation in plea negotiations before a plea agreement has been reached. Because it is undisputed that the trial judge participated in the negotiations that led up to Williams’s pleas,

State v. Adrian L. Williams, 2000 WI 78, 236 Wis. 2d 293, 613 N.W.2d 132, affirming unpublished decision of court of appeals
For Williams: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue: Whether “this court [should] adopt a new rule of procedure, which would require that if a trial judge anticipates exceeding the state’s sentence recommendation under a plea agreement, the trial judge must inform the defendant of that fact and allow the defendant to withdraw his or her plea.”