east for example in the d c circuit you had a very controversial controversial case where the judge probably knew all about the controversial circumstances and may have had some reaction to the lesser degree but in this case how was or supposed to know whether or not he should reject this agreement if he thought that the second degree was improper are you saying he has no discretion he doesn't have any discretion any charges or an agreement not to pursue potential charges the court may may accept the agreement if the court determines for reasons stated on the record that the remaining charges adequately reflect the seriousness of the actual offense with the second degree murder because it is better in the view of the executive branch to get something out of this case to keep this killer but the street for some period of time and then i let him walk the government for a trial that may take many weeks used the judicial resources in that trial only to have this court after going through the struggle and i would assume the emotional climax of the not found guilty of first degree murder come back and say no the court was incorrect in its earlier rejection complete there should not have been the first degree conviction you ma judge did not have discretion as to whether or not to accept a guilty plea then the public interest would not charges but when we have the context of pleading to a lesser degree charge of course the government would not be permitted to do that because of the devil jeopardy clause i believe that is what this court in the united states versus court over perez opinion addressed in that when you have a pl that out that was inappropriate and that we should defer to that and if it was wasn't the wasn't there the optimum range of actually life imprisonment why couldn't the court if it's normally addresses overcharging or undercharge you know where the matter reflects the seriousness of the crime what you're saying is that the judge can accept the plea of guilty to a second yes i believe that has to be read in context with the sentencing guidelines which specifically state that when a court is reviewing and eleven he won a plea agreement that the court should only accept the plea agreement if the remaining charges adequately reflect because the high court and the court over press court were considering entirely different issues as the panel opinion i believe pointed out quite well that in fact if you look at the court of president and they spend a great deal of time considering whether the court had accepted the well your honor it places a greater authority or power with the defendant when the defendant is given a situation where ok we've now charged with murder in the second degree you're not bound to accept it you can you can plead not guilty you can plead guilty what do you want to do and  do anything to prevent that if it is done more piecemeal where the prosecutor is making executive decisions ok i'm going to dismiss this there's no promises made to the defendant there's no promises made by the defendant i'm just going to dismiss this and i'm going to bring a second degree murder charge the defendant  any reason for departing upward stay the course not bound by that it makes its own chairman nation but so whether or not it could find that that it was not adequately reflected and make an upward departure there's no question that it was an attempt exactly what we have here the remaining charges do not adequately reflect the seriousness of the offense and so that the guidelines tell the court that ok we recognize we're going to severely hamper your discretionary ability but