(C)

Judicial Coercion.  Coercion may result when the judge impermissibly participates in the plea bargaining process.  Federal courts are prohibited from participating in plea bargaining.[417]  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.[418]

 

            Likewise, the court’s actions and comments during a plea colloquy can amount to coercion, thus negating the legality of the guilty plea.  Due process is violated when the presiding judge adopts the role of “advocate” and encourages a plea bargain.[419]  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.[420]  The court found that the promise of some unspecified benefit presented a “substantial danger of unintentional coercion,” thus, rendering the waiver involuntary.[421]

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

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

[419] People v. Weaver, 118 Cal.App.4th 131 (2004.)

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

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

GROUNDS " COERCION OF PLEA " JUDICIAL PLEA BARGAINING IMPROPER WHEN ACCEPTING A CONDITIONAL CHANGE OF PLEA
People v. Labora (Cal. App. 4 Dist., Dec. 8, 2010) 90 Cal.App.4th 907, 118 Cal.Rptr.3d 606 (reversing sentence and directing trial court to give defendant the opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea where trial court engaged in improper judicial plea bargaining in accepting conditional change of plea).

GROUNDS " COERCION OF PLEA " REMEDY FOR IMPROPER JUDICIAL PLEA BARGAINING IS WITHDRAWAL OF PLEA
People v. Labora (Cal. App. 4 Dist., Dec. 8, 2010) 90 Cal.App.4th 907, 118 Cal.Rptr.3d 606 (proper remedy for improper judicial plea bargaining was to allow defendant to withdraw his plea, rather than specific performance.)

Other

CAL POST CON"SAFE HAVEN"IMPROPER JUDICIAL PLEA BARGAINING
People v. Clancey (1/10/12) 136 Cal.Rptr.3d 226 (reversing conviction, where court engaged in unlawful judicial plea bargaining by informing the defendant that it would impose a five-year term and strike a strike if he admitted all of the charges and allegations against him, and that he could withdraw his pleas and admissions if the trial court did not follow through on its offer).

GROUNDS " COERCION OF PLEA " JUDICIAL PLEA BARGAINING IMPROPER WHEN ACCEPTING A CONDITIONAL CHANGE OF PLEA
People v. Labora (Cal. App. 4 Dist., Dec. 8, 2010) 90 Cal.App.4th 907, 118 Cal.Rptr.3d 606 (reversing sentence and directing trial court to give defendant the opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea where trial court engaged in improper judicial plea bargaining in accepting conditional change of plea).

GROUNDS " COERCION OF PLEA " REMEDY FOR IMPROPER JUDICIAL PLEA BARGAINING IS WITHDRAWAL OF PLEA
People v. Labora (Cal. App. 4 Dist., Dec. 8, 2010) 90 Cal.App.4th 907, 118 Cal.Rptr.3d 606 (proper remedy for improper judicial plea bargaining was to allow defendant to withdraw his plea, rather than specific performance.)