Instant Case Are Typical of Many Criminal

¶ … instant case are typical of many criminal cases presented to the courts on a daily basis and the role and responsibilities of the principals remain essentially the same. The prosecutor in the case has the primary duty to ensure that justice is done. This duty applies not only to the victim, but also applies as to the defendant. In the instant case this requires that the prosecutor make every effort to make sure that all parties responsible for the crime are properly prosecuted and that such prosecution is conducted fairly (Graham, 2005). The fact that the defendants apparently used a gun in the commission of the crime presents the prosecutor with a considerable problem relative to any plea bargain. If the defendants are charged with a gun specification, the prosecutor must determine whether or not to drop such specification as part of the plea negotiation. In light of the recent emphasis on imposing stricter sentences on crimes involving the use of guns, there is public pressure on prosecutors to enforce these provisions aggressively.

Presented with the social history of the defendant and his relatively tender years, however, the prosecutor would likely be amenable to some form of plea bargain in relationship to the defendant (Bibas, 2004). His social history indicates that the defendant has not been the beneficiary of too many advantages and that he might benefit from the program at the local locked-down facility (CBCF). As a prosecutor, however, the interests of the victim must also enter the equation and this may require that any plea negotiation be accompanied with additional contingencies as to any sentencing recommendation or plea reduction. In this regard, the prosecutor should stand firm in making sure that any reduction in the charges is accompanied by an agreement that the defendant's failure to satisfactorily complete the program at CBCF will result in the imposition of the more serious charges and sentencing mandates.

The defense attorney's responsibilities are to ensure that his client is treated fairly and that his rights are preserved (Smith, 2003). Additionally, he will be attempting to mitigate, as much as possible, any potential sanction that the defendant might receive. Although the defendant has a record as a minor, the fact that he has no adult record works to his advantage and his counsel will certainly make a major issue of this fact. Defense counsel should be working with the prosecutor to arrange a plea agreement that not only serves to mitigate the potential sanctions but also makes it easier for the defendant to successfully return to society once any incarceration period has been terminated. The program at CBCF would seem to be an ideal alternative to prison and provide the defendant with an opportunity to learn some skills. At all costs defense counsel must work to avoid the imposition of the gun specification as it would likely require that the defendant spend a mandatory minimum in a prison facility. In this regard, defense counsel should emphasize the defendant's youth, his need to obtain some basic life skills, his minimal involvement in the actual crime, the fact that no one was hurt in the commission of the crime, and the relative minor nature of the defendant's juvenile record. Although robbery is a serious felony, defense counsel must convince the prosecutor and the judge that the defendant has potential to be a responsible citizen and that the fact that the defendant has no history of substance abuse makes him a strong candidate for the program at CBCF. As it is highly unlikely that neither the prosecution nor the judge will agree to a reduction that results in the defendant being allowed to simply complete the program at CBCF without any additional contingencies, defense counsel should be prepared to agree to reasonable contingencies that do not place too heavy a burden on his client. The placing of too many contingencies would serve to place the defendant in a position of near certain failure and expose him to further incarceration. This is a fine balance and defense counsel must be careful to address the concerns of the prosecutor and judge while still obtaining the best possible plea bargain for his client. Defense counsel does not have a duty to make sure that justice is ensured for everyone involved in the case. Instead, defense counsel must ensure that his client's interests are protected but he must do so without alienating either the prosecutor or the judge.

The role of the judge in this case is as delicate as the role of the prosecution and defense counsel. Like the prosecutor, the judge in entrusted with the duty of ensuring that justice is provided to everyone involved in the process. In doing so he must balance the interests of the victim, the interests of the state, and the interests of the defendant. How this is done varies from case to case and the judge must take into account the many variables that are present in every case (O'Hear, 2008).