"Judges get say on plea deals" January 13, 2012|By Martine Powers and John R. Ellement, Globe Staff
The state’s highest court today confirmed a little-known judicial power to ignore prosecutors and shorten criminal sentences in plea deals if the judge believes “justice may not have been done.’’
In a 6-1 decision, the Supreme Judicial Court’s decided to make it clear that judges are allowed to shorten sentences because of mitigating circumstances. The court also asserted that prosecutors cannot revoke a plea deal if a judge shortens the agreed-upon sentence.
Justice Francis X. Spina, the cases’ sole dissenter, worried that the case could open the door to judges using their power to act as pseudo-defense attorneys.
Related: Boston Globe Designated Driver
Also see: North Carolina Nazis
State statute on judicial powers of sentencing is hazy: A judge cannot “impose a sentence that exceeds the terms of the [plea bargain] recommendation,” but the law says nothing about whether a judge can shorten the sentence agreement.
Over the years, a few judges took the ambiguity of that statute to mean that reducing sentences was allowable, and two of those cases prompted the high court’s ruling today that the practice is fair....
Tom Hoopes, chairman of the Massachusetts Bar Association’s Fair and Impartial Courts Committee, said the decision is part of a nationwide trend of giving judges more power to determine sentencing.
“The buck does, and should, stop with the justice,” Hoopes said.
Still, he said, he does not anticipate the decision having much of a day-to-day effect on the criminal court system.
“I think cases like this are so rare that they’re not going to really impact the way prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges do the business of justice,” Hoopes said.
Then why is it my right-hand corner, front-page lead?
--more--"
