Free Essays,College Free Essays,Free College Essays at Anti Essays

Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (1971)

In 1969, Santobello was indicted on two counts of promoting gambling in the first degree and possession of gambling records in the first degree. At first he pled not guilty, but in hopes of a plea bargain he revoked his plea. The first prosecutor on the case told him that if he pleads guilty then he wouldn’t ask the judge for the maximum sentence. Santobello turned down the offer. Throughout the case, the judge and prosecutor changes. Santobello then decides to accept the first prosecutors plea bargain. The new prosecutor doesn’t accept saying that the plea bargain is no longer a choice; and that he thinks Santobello deserves the maximum sentence. He had found that the defendant had an outrageous criminal record and was allegedly linked to organized criminals. The defense fought that the defendant had been promised that there wouldn’t be prosecution recommendation. The judge then read the pre-sentence report to the counsel. The report stated that the defendant is a “professional criminal” and needs to be institutionalized. The judge ruled that the prior agreements must be honored.
Prosecutors should keep the deal that the defendant was given. I would not be in the position of the defendant, being promised one thing by admitting to a crime and then being sentenced to more time in which the judge feels is suitable. Your being told one thing and then something else happens. You might have had a better chance pleading not guilty, and having the jury or judge decide.