So if a prosecutor and a defense attorney agree that a particular case merits a particular sentence, should a judge be permitted to impose a harsher sentence. That's the question being argued in a case in which the government and defense agreed to a sentencing range of 57-71 months for a defendant who pleaded guilty to alien smuggling (which resulted in the tragic death of a 7 year old boy during the chase on the high seas). Judge Moore has indicated that the agreed upon sentencing range (which is based on an enhancement for death) is not sufficient and has asked for briefs from the parties as to why he should not go higher.
The question is an interesting one. If, as Chief Justice Roberts has suggested, judges are merely umpires who are supposed to call balls and strikes, then why should the umpire call what the parties have deemed a strike as a ball. In other words, it is the government (who represents the people) and defense (who represents the defendant) who know the case the best and who have fought -- under our adversary system -- to reach a result that both sides could live with. Why shouldn't the judge enforce that agreement? Thoughts?
Here's the AP story on it.UPDATE -- The first comment lays out the case for the judge taking such action. Interestingly,
according to Jay Weaver, AUSA Dana Washington explained to the judge that the sentence was reasonable and that the sentencing guidelines took into account the death. He cited to a previous case in which Judge King was reversed for departing upward to life. If the prosecutor, who represents the people, believes the sentence is enough, should the judge (umpire) take a different position?
(Disclosure -- I represented a co-defendant in that King case in which we also secured a reversal in the 11th Circuit on another issue. My client ended up with about 4 year sentence because the 11th Circuit concluded that the events on the boat were not foreseeable to my client)...
