Judge’s Role In Plea Overturns Sentence-Washington, D.C.

Although a district court judge may reject a plea agreement and express its reasons for doing so, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(e)(1) prohibits "all forms of judicial participation in or interference with the plea negotiation process." ^[1] The reasons for this bright line rule are clear. "First, it diminishes the possibility of judicial coercion of a guilty plea, regardless whether the coercion would actually result in an involuntary guilty plea. Second, the judge's involvement in the negotiations is apt to diminish the judge's impartiality. By encouraging a particular agreement, the judge may feel personally involved, and thus, resent the defendant's rejection of his advice. Third, the judge's participation creates a misleading impression of his role in the proceedings. The judge's role seems more like an advocate for the agreement than a neutral arbiter if he joins the negotiations." ^[2]

In a ruling last week by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, a federal appeals court overturned a prison sentence of more than four years for money-laundering given to a local investment consultant, Kenneth C. Baker, and granted Mr. Baker a new trial.^[3] The appellate court's ruling stated that despite "good intentions," U.S. District Court Judge Emmett G. Sullivan committed an error in Baker's case that "reflects badly on the fundamental fairness of the judicial process." ^[4]

Judge Sullivan requested an update on plea talks and prosecutors told the judge that they were offering 21 to 27 months if Baker pleaded guilty to bilking his client of her $96,000 life savings.^[5] Judge Sullivan commented that he accepted a guilty plea months earlier from a man who embezzled about $100,000 from an employee pension plan and sentenced the man to one year and one day in prison and noted that "judges do try to be consistent." ^[6] "I would probably be just as consistent here," said Judge Sullivan. "I'm not going to do one thing in one case where the facts are similar and do something completely different here. I'm just not going to do it. I'm going to be consistent to the extent I can."^[7]

The next day, Baker pleaded guilty and four months later, at his sentencing in July, Baker explained his motivation to the judge. ^[8] "When I came in here on March 2 and fell on my sword, I was pretty much thinking in relation to a case that you had referenced prior to my making my guilty plea of an individual who, I think you said, he took a hundred and some odd thousand dollars and you gave him like a year and a day," Baker said. ^[9] However, Judge Sullivan sentenced Baker to 41 months in prison for federal charges followed by another 10 months on D.C.-related charges.^[10] The 51-month sentence was nearly twice the maximum sentence the government was offering for a guilty plea andBaker appealed the sentence, arguing that Judge Sullivan violated his rights by improperly taking part in plea talks. ^[11]

The appeals court concluded that Judge Sullivan "unilaterally initiated and engaged in a lengthy plea discussion with Baker. Baker had already forgone the government's offer, because he perceived the court had tacitly made him a better one." ^[12]

The appeals court ruling remanded the case back to U.S. District Court to a different judge. ^[13]

---

[1] Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(e)(4) (2007).
[2] United States v. Daigle, 63 F.3d 346 (5th Cir. 1995).
[3] Judge’s Role in Plea Overturns Sentence, Jim McElhatton, The Washington Times, June 11, 2007.
[4] Id.
[5] Id.
[6] Id.
[7] Id.
[8] Id
[9] Id.
[10] Id.
[11] Id.
[12] Id.
[13] Id.