Santobello v. New York: plea bargaining and judicial review

Criminal Justice

Why is the 1971 Supreme Court case known as "Santobellow vs. New York" very important to lawyers, judges and defendants in 2009? The answer to that question is that promises made by prosecutors must be kept, or a judge can throw out the court case. All facets and aspects of legal procedure must be followed to the letter by all parties in the system of justice - this idea should be a no-brainer but even high-paid, high-profile lawyers make mistakes that change the way court cases are settled.

If the plea bargain promise is not kept, as it was not kept in this instance, it not only reflects negatively on the prosecution and the personnel in the justice system that are supposed to make sure citizens uphold the law, it casts a dark shadow over the system of justice in a democratic society.

The facts of this case are available in the Web site www.supreme.justia.com;Santobellowwas indicted in 1969 by the State of New York on two felony counts. Those felony counts were based on Santobellow being accused of "Promoting Gambling in the First Degree," the Web site explains, and for "Possession of Gambling Records in the First Degree." And so as most defendants do, Santobellow pleaded "not guilty" to both counts and hired a lawyer.

As time went by and discussions proceeded between Santobellow's attorney and the assistant district attorney who was handling the case, a deal was struck whereby Santobellow would change his "not guilty" plea to a plea of "guilty" to a lesser charge. That lesser charge was "Possession of Gambling Records in the Second Degree" as opposed to the original charge of "Possession of Gambling Records in the First Degree" (www.supreme.justia.com).Thatlesser charge of second degree would result in a maximum sentence in prison for one year, a far better deal for Santobello than taking the chance on losing his "not guilty" pleas and being convicted on two first degree felony counts.

And so on June 16, 1969, Santobellow changed his plea to "guilty" - and by withdrawing his "not guilty" plea he told the sentencing judge that he did it voluntarily and the court accepted the change in plea. Several months later, in September, due to delays, Santobellow had still not been sentenced; he hired a new attorney, who moved to change the "guilty" plea back to "not guilty." What happened is that Santobellow's attorney claimed that "crucial evidence" against Santobellow had been obtained illegally and filed several motions that caused additional delays. The upshot of this confusion is that when Santobellow appeared before a new judge (the judge that first dealt with the case had retired) there was also a new prosecutor who recommended a one-year sentence in prison for Santobellow. But wait, the original prosecutor had accepted a plea bargain and agreed that there would be no sentence recommendation, and now there was to be a sentence recommendation, which was unfair to the defendant.