Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-7d684dbfc8-mqbnt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2023-09-26T00:43:10.823Z Has data issue: false Feature Flags: { "corePageComponentGetUserInfoFromSharedSession": true, "coreDisableEcommerce": false, "coreDisableSocialShare": false, "coreDisableEcommerceForArticlePurchase": false, "coreDisableEcommerceForBookPurchase": false, "coreDisableEcommerceForElementPurchase": false, "coreUseNewShare": true, "useRatesEcommerce": true } hasContentIssue false

11 - Negotiated Case Dispositions in Germany, England and the United States

from Part III - Criminal Justice and Procedure

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 December 2019

By
Jenia I. Turner  and
Thomas Weigend
Edited by
Kai Ambos ,
Antony Duff ,
Julian Roberts ,
Thomas Weigend  and
Alexander Heinze
Kai Ambos
Affiliation:
Georg-August-Universität, Göttingen, Germany
Antony Duff
Affiliation:
University of Stirling
Julian Roberts
Affiliation:
University of Oxford
Thomas Weigend
Affiliation:
University of Cologne (Emeritus)
Alexander Heinze
Affiliation:
Georg-August-Universität, Göttingen, Germany
Get access

Summary

In the United States, the Supreme Court recently acknowledged that ‘criminal justice today is for the most part a system of pleas, not a system of trials’. More than 95 per cent of convictions in the federal and state systems are the product of negotiated guilty pleas. In England and Wales, that number is about 90 per cent.

Type
Chapter
Information
Core Concepts in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice , pp. 389 - 427
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alkon, C., ‘Plea Bargaining as a Legal Transplant: A Good Idea for Troubled Criminal Justice Systems?’, Transnational Law and Contemporary Problems, 19 (2010), 355–418.Google Scholar
Alschuler, A. W., ‘The Trial Judge’s Role in Plea Bargaining (pt. 1)’, Columbia Law Review, 76 (1976), 1059–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Altenhain, K., Hagemeier, I., Haimerl, M. and Stammen, K.-H., Die Praxis der Absprachen in Wirtschaftsstrafverfahren, Baden-Baden, Nomos (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Altenhain, K., Dietmeier, F. and May, M., Die Praxis der Absprachen im Strafverfahren, Baden-Baden, Nomos (2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ambos, K. and Heinze, A., ‘Abbreviated Procedures in Comparative Criminal Procedure: A Structural Approach with a View to International Criminal Procedure’, in Bergsmo, M. (ed.), Abbreviated Criminal Procedures for Core International Crimes, Brussels, Torkel Opsahl (2017), 27–102.Google Scholar
Arbeitskreis deutscher, österreichischer und schweizerischer Strafrechtslehrer, ‘Alternativ-Entwurf Abgekürzte Strafverfahren im Rechtsstaat (AE-ASR)’, Goltdammer’s Archiv, 166 (2019), 1–128.
Ashworth, A. and Redmayne, M., The Criminal Process, 4th edn, Oxford University Press (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Attorney General’s Guidelines on the Acceptance of Pleas and the Prosecutor’s Role in the Sentencing Exercise (2009), available at www.gov.uk/guidance/the-acceptance-of-pleas-and-the-prosecutors-role-in-the-sentencing-exercise.
Bachmaier, L., ‘The European Court of Human Rights on Negotiated Justice and Coercion’, European Journal on Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 26 (2018), 236–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berdejó, C., ‘Criminalizing Race: Racial Disparities in Plea-Bargaining’, Boston College Law Review, 59 (2018), 1187–249.Google Scholar
Bibas, S., ‘Plea Bargaining Outside the Shadow of Trial’, Harvard Law Review, 117 (2004), 2464–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blume, J. H. and Helm, R. K., ‘The Unexonerated: Factually Innocent Defendants Who Plead Guilty’, Cornell Law Review, 100 (2014), 157–92.Google Scholar
Bordens, K. S., ‘The Effects of Likelihood of Conviction, Threatened Punishment, and Assumed Role on Mock Plea Bargaining Decisions’, Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 5 (1984), 59–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boruchowitz, R. C., Brink, M. N. and Dimino, M., Minor Crimes, Massive Waste: The Terrible Toll of America’s Broken Misdemeanor Courts, Washington, DC, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (2009).Google Scholar
Brodowski, D., ‘Die verfassungsrechtliche Legitimation des US-amerikanischen “plea bargaining”’, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 124 (2012), 733–77.Google Scholar
Brook, C. A., Fiannaca, B., Harvey, D., Marcus, P., McEwan, J. and Pomerance, R., ‘A Comparative Look at Plea Bargaining in Australia, Canada, England, New Zealand, and the United States’, William and Mary Law Review, 57 (2016), 1147–224.Google Scholar
Brown, D. K., ‘The Perverse Effects of Efficiency in Criminal Process’, Virginia Law Review, 100 (2014), 183–223Google Scholar
Brown, D. K., ‘Judicial Power to Regulate Plea Bargaining’, 57 William and Mary Law Review, 57 (2016), 1225–76.Google Scholar
Bureau of Justice Statistics, State Court Sentencing of Convicted Felons, 2004 – Statistical Tables, Washington, DC, Bureau of Justice Statistics (2007).
Bureau of Justice Statistics, Federal Justice Statistics, 2012 – Statistical Tables, Washington, DC, Bureau of Justice Statistics (2015).
Covey, R., ‘Police Misconduct as a Cause of Wrongful Convictions’, Washington University Law Review, 90 (2013), 1133–89.Google Scholar
Dervan, L. E. and Edkins, V. A., ‘The Innocent Defendant’s Dilemma: An Innovative Empirical Study of Plea Bargaining’s Innocence Problem’, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 103 (2013), 1–48.Google Scholar
Duttge, G., ‘Die Urteilsabsprachen als Signum einer rechtlichen Steuerungskrise’, in Hefendehl, R., Hörnle, T. and Greco, L. (eds.), Streitbare Strafrechtswissenschaft. Festschrift für Bernd Schünemann, Munich, C. H. Beck (2014), 875–89.Google Scholar
Enker, A., ‘Perspectives on Plea Bargaining’, in President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice (ed.), Task Force Report: The Courts, Washington, DC, National Criminal Justice Reference Service (1967).Google Scholar
Fair Trials, ‘The Disappearing Trial’ (2017), available at www.fairtrials.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Report-The-Disappearing-Trial.pdf.
Frase, R., ‘State Sentencing Guideline: Diversity, Consensus, and Unresolved Policy Issues’, Columbia Law Review, 105 (2005), 1190–232.Google Scholar
Frankenberg, K. von, Grundlagen konsensualer Konfliktlösungsprozesse, Berlin, Wissenschaftlicher Verlag (2013).Google Scholar
Gercke, B., Julius, K.-P., Temming, D. and Zöller, M. A., Strafprozessordnung. Heidelberger Kommentar, 6th edn, Heidelberg, C. F. Müller (2019).Google Scholar
Gillieron, G., ‘Comparing Plea Bargaining and Abbreviated Trial Procedures’, in Brown, D. K., Turner, J. I. and Weißer, B. (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Criminal Process, Oxford University Press (2019).Google Scholar
Gross, S. R., Jacoby, K., Matheson, D. J. and Montgomery, N., ‘Exonerations in the United States 1989 through 2003’, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 95 (2005), 523–60.Google Scholar
Heaton, P., Mayson, S. G. and Stevenson, M., ‘The Downstream Consequences of Misdemeanor Pretrial Detention’, Stanford Law Review, 69 (2017), 711–94.Google Scholar
Heger, M. and Pest, R., Verständigungen im Strafverfahren nach dem Urteil des Bundesverfassungsgerichts, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 126 (2014), 446–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooper, Lord Justice and Ormerod, D. (eds.), Blackstone’s Criminal Practice 2012, Oxford University Press (2011).Google Scholar
Horne, J., Plea Bargains, Guilty Pleas and the Consequences for Appeal in England and Wales, Warwick School of Law Research Paper No. 2013/10 (2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Human Rights Watch, An Offer You Can’t Refuse: How U.S. Federal Prosecutors Force Drug Defendants to Plead Guilty, New York, Human Rights Watch (2013).
Johnson, D. T., The Japanese Way of Justice, Oxford University Press (2002).Google Scholar
Johnson, M. T. and Gilbert, S. A., The U.S. Sentencing Guidelines – Results of the Federal Judicial Center’s 1996 Survey, Federal Judicial Center (1997), available at www.fjc.gov/sites/default/files/2012/gssurvey.pdf.Google Scholar
Kim, A. C., ‘Underestimating the Trial Penalty: An Empirical Analysis of the Federal Trial Penalty and Critique of the Abrams Study’, Mississippi Law Journal, 84 (2015), 1195–256.Google Scholar
King, N. J., Soulé, D. A., Steen, S. and Weidner, R. R., ‘When Process Affects Punishment: Differences in Sentences after Guilty Plea, Bench Trial, and Jury Trial in Five Guidelines States’, Columbia Law Review, 105 (2005), 959–1009.Google Scholar
King, N. J. and Wright, R. F., ‘The Invisible Revolution in Plea Bargaining: Managerial Judging and Judicial Participation in Negotiations’, Texas Law Review, 95 (2016), 325–97.Google Scholar
Klein, S. R., Remis, A. S. and Elm, D. L., ‘Waiving the Criminal Justice System: An Empirical and Constitutional Analysis’, American Criminal Law Review, 52 (2015), 73–130.Google Scholar
Kleinfeld, J., ‘Two Cultures of Punishment’, Stanford Law Review, 68 (2016), 933–1036.Google Scholar
Kudlich, H., ‘Ecclestone, Verständigungsgesetz und die Folgen’, Zeitschrift für Rechtspolitik (2015), 1–15.
Kudlich, H. (ed.), Münchener Kommentar zur Strafprozessordnung, 3 vols., Munich, C. H. Beck (2016), II.Google Scholar
Kutateladze, B. L., Andiloro, N. R. and Johnson, B. D., ‘Opening Pandora’s Box: How Does Defendant Race Influence Plea Bargaining?’, Justice Quarterly, 33 (2016), 398–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LaFave, W. R., Israel, J. H., King, N. J. and Kerr, O. S., Criminal Procedure, 4th edn, Eagan, Thomson Reuters (2015).Google Scholar
Lammy, D., The Lammy Review: Final Report, London (2017).Google Scholar
Langer, M., ‘Rethinking Plea Bargaining: The Practice and Reform of Prosecutorial Adjudication in American Criminal Procedure’, American Journal of Criminal Law, 33 (2006), 223–99.Google Scholar
Luna, E. and Wade, M. (eds.), The Prosecutor in Transnational Perspective, Oxford University Press (2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCoy, C., ‘Plea Bargaining as Coercion: The Trial Penalty and Plea Bargaining Reform’, Criminal Law Quarterly, 50 (2005), 67–107.Google Scholar
Metcalfe, C. and Chiricos, T., ‘Race, Plea, and Charge Reduction: An Assessment of Racial Disparities in the Plea Process’, Justice Quarterly, 35 (2018), 223–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer-Goßner, L. and Schmitt, B., Strafprozessordnung mit GVG und Nebengesetzen (Beck’sche Kurzkommentare), 61st edn, Munich, C. H. Beck (2018).Google Scholar
Ministry of Justice, Criminal Court Statistics Quarterly, England and Wales, January to March 2018 (Annual 2017) (2018), available at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/720026/ccsq-bulletin-jan-mar-2018.pdf.
Mirza, S., ‘Formalizing the Plea Bargaining Process after Lafler and Frye’, Seton Hall Legislative Journal, 39 (2015), 487–514.Google Scholar
Moldenhauer, G. and Wenske, M., ‘§ 257c’, in Hannich, R. (ed.), Karlsruher Kommentar zur Strafprozessordnung, 7th edn, Munich, C. H. Beck (2013).Google Scholar
Natapoff, A., Snitching: Criminal Informants and the Erosion of American Justice, New York University Press (2009).Google Scholar
National Registry of Exonerations, Exoneration Detail List, available at www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/detaillist.aspx.
National Registry of Exonerations, Innocents Who Plead Guilty (24 November 2015), available at www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Documents/NRE.Guilty.Plea.Article1.pdf.
Niemz, S., Urteilsabsprachen und Opferinteressen – in Verfahren mit Nebenklagebeteiligung, Baden-Baden, Nomos (2011).Google Scholar
O’Hear, M. M., ‘Plea Bargaining and Procedural Justice’, Georgia Law Review, 42 (2008), 407–69.Google Scholar
Peay, J. and Player, E., ‘Pleading Guilty: Why Vulnerability Matters’, Modern Law Review, 81 (2018), 929–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ransiek, A., ‘Zur Urteilsabsprache im Strafprozess: Ein amerikanischer Fall’, Zeitschrift für internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik, 3 (2008), 116–22.Google Scholar
Rauxloh, R., Plea Bargaining in National and International Law, Abingdon, Taylor & Francis (2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richman, D. C., ‘Cooperating Defendants: The Costs and Benefits of Purchasing Information from Scoundrels’, Federal Sentencing Reporter, 8 (1996), 292–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, J. V., ‘Sentencing Guidelines in England and Wales: Recent Developments and Emerging Issues’, Law and Contemporary Problems, 76 (2013), 1–25.Google Scholar
Roberts, J. V. and Bradford, B., ‘Sentence Reductions for a Guilty Plea in England and Wales: Exploring New Empirical Trends’, Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 12 (2015), 187–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, J. E., ‘The Entrenched Position of Plea Bargaining in United States Legal Practice’, American Journal of Comparative Law, 54 (2006), 717–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schulhofer, S. J., ‘Is Plea Bargaining Inevitable?’, Harvard Law Review, 97 (1984), 1037–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schünemann, B., ‘Die Urteilsabsprachen im Strafprozess – ewige Wiederkunft des Gleichen?’, in Zöller, M. A., Hilger, H., Roxin, C. and Küper, W. (eds.), Gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft in internationaler Dimension. Festschrift für Jürgen Wolter, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot (2013), 1107–29.Google Scholar
Sentencing Council, Research to Support the Development of a Guideline for Reduction in Sentence for a Guilty Plea, London (2017), available at www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Guilty-plea-research-report_final.pdf.
Slobogin, C., ‘Plea Bargaining and the Substantive and Procedural Goals of Criminal Justice: From Retribution and Adversarialism to Preventive Justice and Hybrid-Inquisitorialism’, William and Mary Law Review, 57 (2016), 1505–47.Google Scholar
Spohn, C. and Fornango, R., ‘U.S. Attorneys and Substantial Assistance Departures: Testing for Interprosecutor Disparity’, Criminology, 47 (2009), 813–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Statistisches Bundesamt, Fachserie 10 Reihe 3: Rechtspflege Strafverfolgung 2016 (2017), available at www.destatis.de/DE/Publikationen/Thematisch/Rechtspflege/GerichtePersonal/Staatsanwaltschaften2100260167004.pdf?__blob=publicationFile.
Statistisches Bundesamt, Fachserie 10, Reihe 2.6: Rechtspflege Staatsanwaltschaften 2017 (2018), available at www.destatis.de/DE/Publikationen/Thematisch/Rechtspflege/GerichtePersonal/Staatsanwaltschaften2100260177004.pdf?__blob=publicationFile.
Stuckenberg, C.-F., ‘Entscheidungsbesprechung: BVerfG, Urt. v. 19.3.2013’, Zeitschrift für internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik, 8 (2013), 212–19.Google Scholar
Stuckenberg, C.-F., ‘Gründe für die Abschaffung des § 153a StPO’, in Herzog, F., Schlothauer, R. and Wohlers, W. (eds.), Rechtsstaatlicher Strafprozess und Bürgerrechte. Gedächtnisschrift für Edda Weßlau, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot (2016), 369–89.Google Scholar
Thaxton, S., ‘Leveraging Death’, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 103 (2013), 475–552.Google Scholar
Thomas, S. A., ‘What Happened to the American Jury? Proposals for Revamping Plea Bargaining and Summary Judgment’, Litigation, 43 (2017), 25–30.Google Scholar
Tonry, M. and Farrington, D. P., ‘Punishment and Crime across Space and Time’, Crime & Justice, 33 (2005), 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, J. I., ‘Judicial Participation in Plea Negotiations: A Comparative View’, American Journal of Comparative Law, 54 (2006), 199–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, J. I., Plea Bargaining across Borders, New York, Aspen Publishers (2009).Google Scholar
Turner, J. I., ‘Prosecutors and Bargaining in Weak Cases: A Comparative View’, in Luna, E. and Wade, M. (eds.), The Prosecutor in Transnational Perspective, Oxford University Press (2012).Google Scholar
Turner, J. I., ‘Plea Bargaining’, in Luna, E. (ed.), Reforming Criminal Justice, 4 vols., Phoenix, Arizona State University (2017), III, 73–99.Google Scholar
Turner, J. I., ‘Plea Bargaining and International Criminal Justice’, University of the Pacific Law Review, 48 (2017), 219–47.Google Scholar
Weigend, T., ‘The Decay of the Inquisitorial Ideal: Plea Bargaining Invades German Criminal Procedure’, in Jackson, J., Langer, M. and Tillers, P. (eds.), Crime, Procedure and Evidence in a Comparative and International Context. Essays in Honour of Professor Mirjan Damaška, Oxford University Press (2008), 39–64.Google Scholar
Weigend, T., ‘Verfahrenseinstellung nach § 153a StPO: praktikabel, aber nicht legitim’, in Herzog, F., Schlothauer, R. and Wohlers, W. (eds.), Rechtsstaatlicher Strafprozess und Bürgerrechte. Gedächtnisschrift für Edda Weßlau, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot (2016), 413–25.Google Scholar
Weigend, T. and Turner, J. I., ‘The Constitutionality of Negotiated Criminal Judgments in Germany’, German Law Journal, 15 (2014), 81–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, W. S., ‘Proposal for Reform of the Plea Bargaining Process’, 119 University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 119 (1971), 439–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkinson, J. S. III, ‘In Defense of American Criminal Justice’, Vanderbilt Law Review, 67 (2014), 1099–172.Google Scholar
Wright, R. F., ‘Trial Distortion and the End of Innocence in Federal Criminal Justice’, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 154 (2005), 79–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, R. F. and Engen, R. L., ‘The Effects of Depth and Distance in a Criminal Code on Charging, Sentencing, and Prosecutor Power’, North Carolina Law Review, 84 (2006), 1935–82.Google Scholar
Wright, R. F. and Miller, M., ‘The Screening/Bargaining Tradeoff’, Stanford Law Review, 55 (2002), 29–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zöller, M. A., ‘§ 172’, in Gercke, B., Julius, K.-P., Temming, D. and Zöller, M. A., Strafprozessordnung. Heidelberger Kommentar, 6th edn, Heidelberg, C. F. Müller (2019).Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×