Court Opinion

ID: 9629945
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:54:00.185591+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:27.662432
License: Public Domain

Joslin, J.,
dissenting. While I join in my Brother Kelleher’s dissent, I feel compelled to state briefly my views on how to resolve the dilemma resulting from the trial justice’s ill-advised participation in the negotiation procedures and his subsequent disavowal of his bargain with the defendants.
Our options are limited. We can, on the one hand, insist that the trial justice abide by his promise even though to do so means that defendants will avoid punishment commensurate with the seriousness of their crimes. Alternatively, we can insure against defendants’ escaping relatively unscathed by sanctioning the trial justices’ reneging on a promise which undoubtedly was a pervasive influence in inducing them to foresake jury trials and to plead nolo.
While the result of either choice will reflect adversely on the integrity of the judicial system, it seems to me that in these peculiar circumstances less disservice will be done by not faulting the sentencing justice for going back on his word so long as ooncommitantly he afforded the defendants an opportunity to withdraw their nolo pleas. See ABA Project on Minimum Standards for Criminal Justice, Standards Relating to Pleas of Guilty 1 (Approved draft, 1968).
Mr. Chief Justice Roberts participated in the decision but retired prior to its announcement.
Motion to reargue denied.
*550Julius C. Michaelson, Attorney General, John Austin Murphy, Special Asst. Attorney General, for plaintiff.
William F. Reilly, Public Defender, Peter DiBiase, Asst. Public Defender, for defendants.