Court Opinion

ID: 9738132
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:43:19.060931+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:03.905952
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE CLARK, dissenting: On January 13, 1984, law enforcement agents raided a residence in Verage, Illinois, occupied by a man named Ralph Trask. Trask and a second person, Leslie Ann Larson, were arrested. In the house agents found 10 ounces of cocaine, a large quantity of marijuana, and a cache of firearms and ammunition. Since his arrest, Trask has cooperated with law enforcement authorities and has helped to dismantle the drug distribution network with which he had been associated. This arrest was not achieved by magic. It was the result of the defendant’s bargained-for cooperation with law enforcement authorities. At considerable risk to his own life and safety the defendant acted as the State’s undercover agent, dealing with Trask on many occasions and often entering the Trask residence. It was the defendant’s personal observation of narcotics in the Trask residence which was the basis for the State’s search warrant. During the course of his undercover work, the defendant suffered a heart attack. After recovering, he continued to work as an undercover agent. The defendant lived with his wife and son more than several miles from the Trask residence, and the defendant had reason to believe that Trask knew where he lived. The defendant did not risk his own life, and the lives of his family, out of the goodness of his heart. He took these risks in exchange for the State’s promise that pending charges against him would be reduced and the State would recommend that he only receive probation and a fíne. Nor was the State’s promise to the defendant motivated by eleemosynary concern. State agents promised leniency to the defendant in return for his cooperation, cooperation from which they reaped the intended benefit. The trial court did nothing more than enforce this bargain. I am unable to understand why the majority believes that such enforcement, after the defendant has fully performed, violates the Constitution. Under the court’s decision today, a prosecutor could persuade a defendant to swim the English Channel as consideration for a plea bargain and then, for no reason at all, break the bargain and force the defendant to go to trial. More precisely, the court’s decision today precludes a trial court from ordering the specific performance of a plea bargain, even where the defendant has substantially performed under its terms. And while the court obviously believes its decision will benefit law enforcement authorities, it has overlooked the actual effect its decision will have on the plea bargaining process. Today’s decision throws a monkey wrench into our plea bargaining machinery. As of today, a prosecutor’s promise to reduce the charges for a defendant in exchange for the defendant’s assistance will not be enforceable; few informed defendants will aid the prosecution in return for a promise when they know that it is not enforceable by a trial court. Since I do not believe that the plea bargaining process should be hampered in this way, I respectfully dissent. It is difficult to exaggerate the importance of plea bargaining to our criminal justice system. As our court has previously stated, “Whatever the situation might be in an ideal world, the fact is that agreements between the prosecution and the defense are an important component of this country’s criminal justice system. [Citation.] If a defendant cannot place his faith in the State’s promise, this important component is destroyed.” (People v. Starks (1985), 106 Ill. 2d 441, 452.) One function of plea bargaining is to allow law enforcement authorities to secure information from criminal defendants who otherwise would have very little incentive to cooperate. In the regulation of plea bargaining, the courts have applied several different perspectives. First, the due process clause imposes constitutional limitations on plea bargaining. To the extent that a defendant’s guilty plea is induced by a false promise of the prosecution, the defendant’s plea is involuntary; as a remedy the defendant must be granted specific performance of the prosecution’s promise or an opportunity to withdraw his plea. However, plea bargaining is also to some extent contractual; courts typically speak of offer, acceptance, detrimental reliance, specific performance, and recission. Finally, the application of contract principles to plea bargaining is limited by the public interest in the efficient operation of the criminal justice system, an interest which may sometimes justify the trial court’s decision to ignore or set aside the terms of a plea bargain. I believe that all of these perspectives compel us to refrain from interfering with the trial court’s decision to grant specific performance. As a matter of constitutional law, it is clear that a fully executed plea bargain must be honored. If the defendant pleads guilty in return for a promise which the prosecution fails to fulfill, the defendant must be granted either specific performance of the prosecution’s promise or an opportunity to withdraw his plea and proceed to trial. (Santobello v. New York (1971), 404 U.S. 257, 261-62, 30 L. Ed. 2d 427, 432-33, 92 S. Ct. 495, 498-99.) On the other hand, it is also clear that the Constitution does not demand the specific performance of a plea bargain which is completely executory. If the defendant has not yet pled guilty or otherwise performed the terms of the bargain, the prosecution cannot be constitutionally required to specifically perform its part of the bargain. Mabry v. Johnson (1984), 467 U.S. 504, 510-11, 81 L. Ed. 2d 437, 444-45, 104 S. Ct. 2543, 2548. From the constitutional perspective, the issue posed by this case and some of our earlier cases is whether: (1) a defendant’s agreement to a plea bargain is truly voluntary where the defendant is so misled as to the value of the prosecution’s commitments that he does something for the benefit of the prosecution and to his own detriment other than actually pleading guilty and (2) even assuming that the defendant’s agreement is voluntary, whether the Constitution precludes a court from specifically enforcing such a bargain. I believe that the answer to both questions is no. First, the provision of actual consideration in addition to a mere promise distinguishes this case from Mabry. The Court in Mabry considered what might be called a “pure” plea bargain: the defendant gave his promise to plead guilty in return for the prosecution’s promise of leniency. Under these circumstances, the prosecution’s decision to break the bargain deprived the defendant of nothing more than the expectation that the prosecution would keep its word; conversely, the prosecution received nothing from the defendant. The status quo was restored. The prosecution did not receive the promised benefit of a guilty plea which would save it from the risk and expense of a trial; conversely, the defendant did not receive the benefit of the prosecution’s leniency. Under these circumstances, the Court held that the defendant had no constitutional right to specific performance. His ensuing guilty plea was voluntary because it had not been induced in any way by the false promise. He remained free to withdraw the plea and go to trial. Moreover, the disappointment of his mere expectation did not deprive him of a constitutionally protected interest in life, liberty, or property. Neither of these rationales supports the denial of specific performance in this case. While the defendant still remained free to go to trial, the voluntariness of this decision had been impaired by his actual performance in response to the prosecution’s promise. Moreover, even had the defendant wished to plead guilty again, he could not possibly have received the same bargain that he had initially agreed to and carried out, since the prosecution, having already received the benefit of his information, no longer needed to provide him with leniency in return for it. Moreover, the defendant did not lose only a mere expectation. Rather, he lost his time, his labor, and his safety, as well as a significant bargaining chip. Even setting aside his time and risk involved in face-to-face meetings with a drug dealer, it is no secret that the life of a government informant in prison is never pleasant and, often, short. I am therefore puzzled by the majority’s implicit conclusion that the government’s conduct did not implicate the defendant’s constitutionally protected right to life, liberty, and property. For these reasons, I believe that this case stands on all fours with People v. Starks (1985), 106 Ill. 2d 441, where the defendant “performed” by taking a lie detector test, and is distinguishable from People v. Boyt (1985), 109 Ill. 2d 403, where the defendant merely promised to plead guilty. Candor compels me to admit that I still disagree with the result in Boyt for the reasons I expressed in my dissent in that case; Boyt is distinguishable from Mabry because the prosecution in Boyt used the defendant’s executory promises to persuade her codefendant to plead guilty, thus transforming the promises into performances. But even were I to accept Boyt I would still believe the majority’s reliance upon it misplaced. Here the defendant did something more than make a mere executory promise. He performed. As in Stark, he provided the State with new information. It is this fact which estops the State from contesting the court’s grant of specific performance. I therefore believe that the court’s grant of specific performance was constitutionally required. But even were I to agree that such a grant was not constitutionally required, I would still not agree with the majority’s decision. For the majority appears to conclude that the Constitution somehow precludes the trial court from ordering specific performance of the agreement. This conclusion is without merit. Mabry and the Federal cases cited by the court all involved trial courts which refused to specifically enforce plea agreements and challenges on the ground that such refusals violated the due process rights of the defendants. (See Mabry, 467 U.S. at 505-06, 81 L. Ed. 2d at 441, 104 S. Ct. at 2545; United States v. McGovern (8th Cir. 1987), 822 F.2d 739, 740-43; United States v. Coon (8th Cir. 1986), 805 F.2d 822, 824; Government of the Virgin Islands v. Scotland (3d Cir. 1980), 614 F.2d 360, 362.) None of these cases indicate that a trial court is precluded from ordering specific performance as a matter of public policy. In fact, McGovern clearly states that “in an agreement that contemplates the defendant’s preplea cooperation as well as his plea of guilty, the government must, unless and until the court rejects the plea, honor in good faith its obligations under the agreement.” (McGovern, 822 F.2d at 744.) In McGovern, the court held only that the trial court’s rejection of the plea (on the grounds of mutual mistake and violation of public policy) released the government from its obligation. Here the trial court, far from rejecting the plea, actually enforced the agreement. Therefore McGovern is inapplicable. A second possible perspective is the perspective of contract law and public policy. Even assuming arguendo that no constitutional rights are involved, I still believe that the trial court was well within its discretion in granting specific performance. This agreement was not a commercial contract. But just as we enforce commercial contracts so as to better serve the public interest in the free flow of commercial exchange, so enforcement of executed or partially executed plea bargains serves the public interest in the efficient administration of justice. We do law enforcement authorities no favor when we decide they cannot be held to their agreements. In the long run that decision can only undermine their ability to persuade defendants to cooperate. I acknowledge that in this instance there is room for dispute as to whether an agreement was actually reached. But, after examining the record, I see no reason to disagree with the trial court’s conclusion that someone in the defendant’s position would be objectively justified in believing that the government was promising leniency in return for his cooperation. I respectfully dissent.