Negotiating Justice: Prosecutorial Perspectives on Federal Plea Bargaining in the District of Columbia

By Brown, Mary Patrice; Bunnell, Stevan E. | American Criminal Law Review, Summer 2006 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Negotiating Justice: Prosecutorial Perspectives on Federal Plea Bargaining in the District of Columbia


Brown, Mary Patrice, Bunnell, Stevan E., American Criminal Law Review


INTRODUCTION

When the editors of the American Criminal Law Review invited us to choose an essay topic related to the theme of this issue--The State of Federal Prosecution--it did not take us long to focus on federal plea bargaining. During the last three and a half years that we have been supervising white collar and other federal prosecutions in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia (USAO-DC), (1) the vast majority of the hundreds of cases we have overseen ended in a plea agreement. (2) D.C. is hardly an aberration. For years, a plea agreement has been the end game for most federal cases everywhere, and the trend over the last decade has been toward ever increasing percentages of guilty pleas. From 1994 through 2003, the percentage of federal criminal convictions obtained by a guilty plea increased from 91% in 1994 (3) to 96% in 2003. (4) The data is actually a bit misleading: plea bargaining is even more prevalent than the 96% figure suggests since a plea offer and some plea negotiation--albeit ultimately unsuccessful--is also part of just about every federal case that goes to trial. Any way you slice it, plea bargaining is a defining, if not the defining, feature of the present federal criminal justice system.

In judicial and scholarly writing, however, the particular characteristics of federal plea bargaining remain relatively under examined, certainly compared to the enormous amount of scholarly and judicial attention that has been devoted to so many other aspects of federal criminal law. Much of the academic writing on plea bargaining has focused on the general phenomenon of plea bargaining, lumping together local, state, and federal practices from many jurisdictions. Other writers have abstracted the plea bargaining process and analyzed it as a matter of economic theory.

We thought it would be useful to provide a description from the perspective of two experienced federal prosecutors of how federal plea bargaining works in practice in one federal district, the District of Columbia, a district we both know well. In this essay, we will attempt to provide an overview of the legal rules and Department of Justice (DOJ) policies that define what is negotiable and what is required in federal plea agreements. We will describe the key features of the standard federal plea agreement used in the District of Columbia and attempt to explain how rules, policy, local practice, and other cultural considerations relevant to plea bargaining combine to protect the rights of defendants, constrain and channel the exercise of prosecutorial discretion, and promote important societal interests. Finally, we will consider how two recent major developments in federal criminal law--the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Booker (5) and the Crime Victims' Rights Act of 2004 (6)--have affected the process and substance of federal plea bargaining.

In addition to adding a small bit of concrete to an otherwise fairly abstract area of academic discourse, we also thought it important to provide a description and analysis of federal plea bargaining from a prosecutor's perspective. Many academic and legal commentators seem to regard plea bargaining as a suspect surrender to the realities of limited judicial and prosecutorial resources, an undesirable, if not fundamentally unfair, method of circumventing the preferred way of resolving criminal cases: a jury trial with full legal due process. As career prosecutors who have spent much of our professional lives engaged in the practice of plea bargaining, we, not surprisingly, have a more positive view of the process. Indeed, in our experience federal plea bargaining has many virtues--including the promotion of individual justice, resolution for victims, defendant rehabilitation, horizontal consistency, and general deterrence--that go far beyond the efficiencies of avoiding a full trial for every criminal defendant. It is not our purpose here to engage in a sweeping theoretical or academic debate about the general legitimacy or desirability of plea bargaining.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

Negotiating Justice: Prosecutorial Perspectives on Federal Plea Bargaining in the District of Columbia
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?