Opinion ID: 63
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Chambers Meeting

Text: The following morning on June 26, 2003, Judge Rambo held a meeting in her chambers to discuss Brown's plea situation with Brown's trial defense team and representatives from the United States Attorney's Office, including United States Attorney Thomas Marino. Obviously Judge Rambo's letter with the statement of reasons for rejecting the plea agreement had jolted the attorneys in the case. Brown's lead trial counsel, Reid Weingarten, began the meeting by explaining that as a result of Judge Rambo's letter, Brown was unwilling to plead guilty because he no longer believed he had a fair shot to argue for leniency in sentencing from the District Court. Id. at 453. Weingarten requested a continuance of the trial to catch our breath and attempt to salvage th[e] deal. App. at 452. The government joined the defense's request for a continuance. Over the course of the meeting, Marino made three statements that Brown characterizes as references to an ex parte conversation about Brown's case that the United States Attorney's Office had with Judge Rambo June 25, 2003. In one reference, Marino stated, As an aside, I had a concern when the Court raised an issuewhat you said to us yesterday as to was I giving away the farm? Because there is nothing I want more in this case than the Court to say that this is a fair and just agreement. Id. at 459. Marino then asked whether a preliminary guideline check that Judge Rambo stated the Court had made with the Probation Office had resulted in a Sentencing Guidelines calculation different from that the government had provided in the plea agreement. Id. at 458-59. After Judge Rambo indicated that the Probation Office indeed had come up with a different calculation, Marino responded, That is what I think the problem is. I am hoping that the facts we discussed with the Court yesterday and facts that we may be able to bring to the Court's attention in the future once we getif we do get these continuances will resolve that matter. Id. at 460. Brown's attorney did not raise any objection to the Court proceedings at the meeting or at any time prior to this appeal on the ground that there had been ex parte or improper contacts between the government and the Court. Following Marino's statements, Judge Rambo expressed her perception that, based on the facts known to her, Brown and Grass seemed equally to blame for the wrongdoing at Rite Aid, and that she did not understand why the government was treating Brown more favorably than Grass. Judge Rambo continued, Now if there are facts that you have that you are going to present that wipe away that perception, then fine. I don't have that. Id. at 460. Despite Judge Rambo's reservations, the transcript of the chambers conference suggests that during the period between when she sent the parties her letter and statement of reasons and the following day's conference, she had become more willing to consider accepting Brown's plea agreement. On one occasion, Judge Rambo stated she had no problem accepting the plea and that even if she did not accept the agreement, Brown would not receive a sentence heavier than he otherwise would receive, so long as the District Court's Guidelines calculation comported with that arrived at by the government. Id. at 458. On the second occasion, Judge Rambo stated she had no problem with the plea, but that she wanted to see what the guidelines were and then look at the plea in conjunction with the presentence report as she had done with Grass. Id. at 461. Additionally, Judge Rambo never read aloud her statement of reasons for rejecting the plea agreement even though her June 25 letter indicated her intent to do so. Nevertheless, Weingarten concluded the chambers meeting by reiterating that, in light of Judge Rambo's June 25 letter and statement of reasons, Brown was unwilling at that point to enter a guilty plea. Several hours after the June 26 meeting, Judge Rambo entered an order granting Brown until July 14, 2003, to notify the Court of his plea decision. Of course, inasmuch as Brown did not plead guilty, the case ultimately proceeded to trial. The record does not reflect that there were any further plea negotiations between Brown and the government following the chambers conference and does not reveal how Brown communicated his decision not to enter a guilty plea to the Court.