{"id":72615,"title":{"rendered":"Two Proposals For Reforming New Jersey\u2019s Brimage<\/i> System of Plea Bargaining"},"content":{"rendered":"

Kelley Thompson, Esq.\u200a1<\/a>\u200a<\/span><\/sup> Within the state itself, Brimage<\/i>\u2019s interpretation of separation of powers has gained precedential value \u2013 the New Jersey judiciary has applied the three-part system instituted by Brimage<\/i> and its predecessor cases to other statutes.\u200a11<\/a>\u200a<\/span><\/sup> In Vasquez<\/i>, like in Lagares<\/i>, the court held that as written, the provision would violate separation of powers.\u200a24<\/a>\u200a<\/span><\/sup> That consideration is the \u201cvertical axis\u201d on the table, and along the \u201chorizontal axis\u201d is the \u201cextent of the defendant\u2019s criminal history.\u201d That calculation gives the prosecutor the maximum, minimum, and presumptive offer for the defendant\u2019s particular case.The prosecutor has to use the presumptive offer unless calculation of aggravating or mitigating factors indicates that an upward or downward movement in sentence is warranted. Then, the prosecutor has to apply enhancements if any from the statute apply, and the prosecutor can give the defendant a downward departure (for cooperation) if allowed by the statute in the particular case at issue. In each plea negotiation for a Brimage<\/i>-eligible offense, the prosecutor must engage in this multi-step process. <\/i><\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n

Defendants are entitled to judicial review of their Brimage<\/i> offers,\u200a31<\/a>\u200a<\/span><\/sup> However, the New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division has provided some clarity on how this judicial review should occur, clarifying the process in State v. Coulter <\/i>in 1999. The Appellate Division decided Coulter<\/i> after the issuance of the original Guidelines but before the New Jersey Supreme Court amended the Guidelines in response to State v.<\/i> Brimage<\/i>.\u200a33<\/a>\u200a<\/span><\/sup><\/blockquote>\r\n\r\n\r\n

The Superior Court Appellate Division has defined arbitrariness and capriciousness as \u201cwillful and unreasoning action, without consideration and in disregard of circumstances.\u201d\u200a42<\/a>\u200a<\/span><\/sup><\/blockquote>\r\n\r\n\r\n

In Brimage<\/i> pleas, the non-plenary hearings for arbitrariness and capriciousness could occur during or in conjunction with these plea colloquies. Accordingly, court dockets would not have to change, and attorneys would not face the burden of having to show up to court for additional proceedings. Adding the review to plea colloquies would admittedly add some time to each individual colloquy, but the added time would likely not exceed a period of a few minutes per plea. Additionally, ensuring the correctness of defendants\u2019 Brimage<\/i> calculations seems worth a reduction in efficiency, particularly when that reduction in efficiency at the trial court level could lead to a reduction in appeals, and thus an increase in efficiency, at the appellate level.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n

The New Jersey Supreme Court could require Brimage<\/i> hearings in every case under the state separation of powers doctrine.\u200a45<\/a>\u200a<\/span><\/sup> If the prosecutor does not offer the standardized flat offer or the standardized open offer, the defendant is eligible for one of them, and the defense attorney fails to object, that failure could potentially be deficiency. If denying the standardized offers is the correct decision, the next step for the prosecutor is to find out the minimum, maximum, and presumptive plea offer for the defendant based on characteristics of the offense and aggravating\/mitigating factors. The characteristics that the prosecutor must consider include \u201cwhether the offense involved weapons or whether the offense involved an especially large amount of drugs.\u201d\u200a62<\/a>\u200a<\/span><\/sup> Here, again, the prosecution could incorrectly calculate the defendant\u2019s potential eligibility for the maximum, minimum, or presumptive plea offer by incorrectly accounting for the aggravating and mitigating factors.\u200a63<\/a>\u200a<\/span><\/sup> To ensure a fairer system for defendants, the New Jersey Supreme Court should require a non-plenary hearings to review Brimage<\/i> calculations in all Brimage<\/i> cases (which could potentially occur during or in conjunction with plea colloquies), and the New Jersey Bar or the Attorney General should issue guidelines for defense attorneys, laying out their obligations under the system. If these changes are made, defendants will benefit from a fairer system, and any potential states considering adopting Brimage<\/i> plea systems in the future can learn from New Jersey\u2019s changes.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

Footnotes<\/h2>
\u200a1<\/a>\u200a<\/span>Kelley Thompson is Director of Professional Engagement and an Adjunct Professor of Law at Stetson University College of Law. She is also an Ed.D. candidate at Florida State University. She is a member of the Florida Bar and practiced law in Florida prior to entering academia. She obtained her B.A. from New College of Florida, her J.D., magna cum laude, from Stetson, and her LL.M., cum laude, from Notre Dame Law School. She would like to thank Professor Marah McLeod at Notre Dame Law School for her mentorship and advice during the writing process. She would also like to thank her Plea Bargaining classmates at Notre Dame Law School for their feedback on this topic and their feedback on the corresponding paper presentation. Finally, she would like to thank her mother, father, and brother for their endless support during her time at Notre Dame. All opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author. This article is dedicated to Dusty & CJ.<\/div>
\u200a2<\/a>\u200a<\/span>Mo. v. Frye<\/i>, 566 U.S. 134, 144<\/a> (2012) (quoting Scott and Stuntz, Plea Bargaining as Contract<\/i>, 101 Yale L.J. 1909, 1912<\/a> (1992)).<\/div>
\u200a3<\/a>\u200a<\/span>See Bordenkircher v. Hayes<\/i>, 434 U.S. 357<\/a> (1978); William J. Stuntz, Bordenkircher v. Hayes: Plea Bargaining and the Decline of the Rule of Law<\/i>, Harvard L. Rev.<\/a> (2006).<\/div>
\u200a4<\/a>\u200a<\/span>Boykin v. Ala.<\/i>, 395 U.S. 238<\/a> (1969).<\/div>
\u200a5<\/a>\u200a<\/span>Albert Alschuler, The Prosecutor\u2019s Role in Plea Bargaining, <\/i>U. Chi. L. Rev.<\/a> (1968).<\/div>
\u200a6<\/a>\u200a<\/span>Strickland v. Wash<\/i>., 466 U.S. 688 <\/a> (1984); Hill v. Lockhart<\/i>, 474 U.S. 52<\/a> (1985).<\/div>
\u200a7<\/a>\u200a<\/span>Padilla v. Ky.,<\/i> 559 U.S. 356 <\/a> (2010).<\/div>
\u200a8<\/a>\u200a<\/span>State v. Brimage,<\/i> 153 N.J. 1<\/a> (1998).<\/div>
\u200a9<\/a>\u200a<\/span>Ronald F. Wright, Symposium: Sentencing: What\u2019s at Stake for the States? Panel One: Prosecutorial Discretion and its Challenges: Sentencing Commissions as Provocateurs of Prosecutorial Self-Regulation<\/i>, 105 Colum. L. Rev. 1010, 1030\u201331<\/a> (2005); Revised Att\u2019y Gen. Guidelines for Negotiating Cases Under N.J.S.A.<\/i>, Brimage Guidelines 2<\/a> (2004).<\/div>
\u200a10<\/a>\u200a<\/span>Ronald F. Wright, Symposium: Sentencing: What\u2019s at Stake for the States? Panel One: Prosecutorial Discretion and its Challenges: Sentencing Commissions as Provocateurs of Prosecutorial Self-Regulation<\/i>, 105 Colum. L. Rev. 1010, 1030\u201331<\/a> (2005); Revised Att\u2019y Gen. Guidelines for Negotiating Cases Under N.J.S.A.<\/i>, Brimage Guidelines 2<\/a> (2004).<\/span><\/div>
\u200a11<\/a>\u200a<\/span>State v. A.T.C.<\/i>, 239 N.J. 450 at 34\u201338 <\/a>(N.J. 2019); State v. Benjamin<\/i>, 228 N.J. 358, 371\u201373<\/a> (N.J. 2017).<\/div>
\u200a12<\/a>\u200a<\/span>Michael Cassidy, (Ad)Ministering Justice: A Prosecutor\u2019s Ethical Duty to Support Sentencing Reform,<\/i> 45 Loy. U. Chi. L.J. 981, 985\u20131023<\/a> (2014).<\/div>
\u200a13<\/a>\u200a<\/span>Michael Cassidy, (Ad)Ministering Justice: A Prosecutor\u2019s Ethical Duty to Support Sentencing Reform,<\/i> 45 Loy. U. Chi. L.J. 981, 985\u20131023<\/a> (2014).<\/div>
\u200a14<\/a>\u200a<\/span>See N.J. Const., Art. III, Para. 1<\/a><\/div>
\u200a15<\/a>\u200a<\/span>Ronald F. Wright, Symposium: Sentencing: What\u2019s at Stake for the States? Panel One: Prosecutorial Discretion and its Challenges: Sentencing Commissions as Provocateurs of Prosecutorial Self-Regulation,<\/i> 105 Colum. L. Rev. 1010, 1030\u201331<\/a> (2005).<\/div>
\u200a16<\/a>\u200a<\/span>State v. Lagares<\/i>, 127 N.J. 20<\/a> (N.J. 1992) (holding that New Jersey\u2019s repeat offender drug law violates the state\u2019s separation of powers constitutional provision); State v. Vasquez<\/i>, 129 N.J. 189 at 195\u2013196<\/a> (N.J. 19922); State v. Brimage<\/i>, 153 N.J. 1<\/a> (1998); N.J. CONST., Art. III, Para. 1<\/a><\/div>
\u200a17<\/a>\u200a<\/span>N.J. CONST., Art. III, Para. 1<\/a><\/div>
\u200a18<\/a>\u200a<\/span>Ronald F. Wright, Symposium: Sentencing: What\u2019s at Stake for the States? Panel One: Prosecutorial Discretion and its Challenges: Sentencing Commissions as Provocateurs of Prosecutorial Self-Regulation,<\/i> 105 Colum. L. Rev. 1010, 1030\u201331<\/a> (2005); State v. Vasquez<\/i>, 129 N.J. 189, 195\u201396<\/a> (N.J. 1992); State v. Brimage<\/i>, 153 N.J. 1 at 3\u201327<\/a> (1998).<\/div>
\u200a19<\/a>\u200a<\/span>State v. Lagares<\/i>, 127 N.J. 20 at 23\u201337<\/a> (N.J. 1992); State v. Vasquez<\/i>, 129 N.J. 189 at 191\u2013210<\/a> (N.J. 1992).<\/div>
\u200a20<\/a>\u200a<\/span>State v. Vasquez<\/i>, 129 N.J. 189 at 195-196<\/a> (N.J. 1992); R. Michael Cassidy, (Ad)Ministering Justice: A Prosecutor\u2019s Ethical Duty to Support Sentencing Reform,<\/i> 5 Loy. U. Chi. L. J. 981, 207\u201313<\/a> (2014).<\/div>
\u200a21<\/a>\u200a<\/span>Michael Cassidy, (Ad)Ministering Justice: A Prosecutor\u2019s Ethical Duty to Support Sentencing Reform,<\/i>5 Loy. U. Chi. L. J. 981, 207\u201313<\/a> (2014); State v. Lagares<\/i>, 127 N.J. 20 at 23\u201337<\/a> (N.J. 1992).<\/div>
\u200a22<\/a>\u200a<\/span>State v. Vasquez<\/i>, 129 N.J. 189 at 191\u2013210<\/a> (N.J. 1992).<\/div>
\u200a23<\/a>\u200a<\/span>Revised Att\u2019y Gen. Guidelines for Negotiating Cases Under N.J.S.A.<\/i>, Brimage Guidelines 2<\/a> <\/i>(2004); See N.J. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 2C: 35-12<\/a>.<\/span><\/div>
\u200a24<\/a>\u200a<\/span>State v. Vasquez<\/i>, 129 N.J. 189 at 195\u2013196<\/a> (N.J. 1992).<\/div>
\u200a25<\/a>\u200a<\/span>Revised Att\u2019y Gen. Guidelines for Negotiating Cases Under N.J.S.A.<\/i>, Brimage Guidelines 2<\/a> <\/i>(2004);<\/i> State v. Brimage<\/i>, 153 N.J. 1<\/a> (N.J. 1998).<\/div>
\u200a26<\/a>\u200a<\/span>State v. Lagares<\/i>, 127 N.J. 20 at 23\u201337<\/a> (N.J. 1992); State v. Vasquez<\/i>, 129 N.J. 189 at 195\u2013196<\/a> (N.J. 1992).<\/div>
\u200a27<\/a>\u200a<\/span>Revised Att\u2019y Gen. Guidelines for Negotiating Cases Under N.J.S.A.<\/i>, Brimage Guidelines 2<\/a> <\/i>(2004).<\/div>
\u200a28<\/a>\u200a<\/span>State v. Vasquez<\/i>, 129 N.J. 189 at 195\u2013196<\/a> (N.J. 1992).<\/div>
\u200a29<\/a>\u200a<\/span>Revised Att\u2019y Gen. Guidelines for Negotiating Cases Under N.J.S.A.<\/i>, Brimage Guidelines 2<\/a> (2004).<\/div>
\u200a30<\/a>\u200a<\/span>Revised Att\u2019y Gen. Guidelines for Negotiating Cases Under N.J.S.A.<\/i>, Brimage Guidelines 2<\/a> (2004).<\/span><\/div>
\u200a31<\/a>\u200a<\/span>State v. Vasquez<\/i>, 129 N.J. 189, 195\u201396<\/a> (N.J. 1992).<\/div>
\u200a32<\/a>\u200a<\/span>Revised Att\u2019y Gen. Guidelines for Negotiating Cases Under N.J.S.A.<\/i>, Brimage Guidelines 2<\/a> (2004).<\/span><\/div>
\u200a33<\/a>\u200a<\/span>State v. Coulter,<\/i> 742 A.2d 579<\/a> (N.J. Super. App. Div. 1999).<\/div>
\u200a34<\/a>\u200a<\/span>State v. Coulter,<\/i> 742 A.2d 579<\/a> (N.J. Super. App. Div. 1999).<\/div>
\u200a35<\/a>\u200a<\/span>State v. Coulter,<\/i> 742 A.2d 579<\/a> (N.J. Super. App. Div. 1999).<\/div>
\u200a36<\/a>\u200a<\/span>State v. Craft<\/i>, 225 N.J. 339<\/a> (N.J. 2016); State v. Tutis<\/i>, 186 N.J. 241<\/a> (N.J. 2006).<\/div>
\u200a37<\/a>\u200a<\/span>State v. Coulter,<\/i> 742 A.2d 579<\/a> (N.J. Super. App. Div. 1999).<\/div>
\u200a38<\/a>\u200a<\/span>Rishi Batra, Judicial Participation in Plea Bargaining: A Proposal for Plea Reform,<\/i> Casetext<\/a> (Sept. 2, 2015).<\/div>
\u200a39<\/a>\u200a<\/span>See<\/i> State v. Vasquez<\/i>, 129 N.J. 189, 195\u201396<\/a> (N.J. 1992); State v. Lagares<\/i>, 127 N.J. 20 at 23\u201337<\/a> (N.J. 1992).<\/div>
\u200a40<\/a>\u200a<\/span>State v. Coulter,<\/i> 742 A.2d 579<\/a> (N.J. Super. App. Div. 1999).<\/div>
\u200a41<\/a>\u200a<\/span>Revised Att\u2019y Gen. Guidelines for Negotiating Cases Under N.J.S.A.<\/i>, Brimage Guidelines 2<\/a>(2004).<\/span><\/div>
\u200a42<\/a>\u200a<\/span>State v. Feinstein<\/i>, No. A-3516-14T4, at 12\u201313<\/a> (N.J. Super. App. Div. 2016).<\/div>
\u200a43<\/a>\u200a<\/span>State v. Coulter,<\/i> 742 A.2d 579<\/a> (N.J. Super. App. Div. 1999).<\/div>
\u200a44<\/a>\u200a<\/span>N.J. Court Rules R. 7:6-2(A)(1)<\/a>.<\/span><\/div>
\u200a45<\/a>\u200a<\/span>See <\/i>N.J. Const., Art. III, Para. 1<\/a>.<\/div>
\u200a46<\/a>\u200a<\/span>State v. Vasquez<\/i>, 129 N.J. 189 at 195-196<\/a> (N.J. 1992); State v. Lagares<\/i>, 127 N.J. 20 at 23-37<\/a> (N.J. 1992); State v. Brimage<\/i>, 153 N.J. 1<\/a> (N.J. 1998).<\/div>
\u200a47<\/a>\u200a<\/span>N.J. Const., Art. III, Para. 1<\/a>.<\/div>
\u200a48<\/a>\u200a<\/span>Strickland v. WA<\/i>, 466 U.S. at 687\u201388<\/a> (1984); Hill v. Lockhart<\/i>, 474 U.S. 52, 58<\/a> (1985).<\/div>
\u200a49<\/a>\u200a<\/span>Strickland v. WA<\/i>, 466 U.S. at 687\u201388<\/a> (1984).<\/div>
\u200a50<\/a>\u200a<\/span>State v. Dabney<\/i>, No. A-2747-16T3, at 9<\/a> (N.J. Super. App. Div. 2018) (quoting Strickland v. WA<\/i>, 466 U.S. at 687\u201388<\/a> (1984)).<\/div>
\u200a51<\/a>\u200a<\/span>Strickland v. WA<\/i>, 466 U.S. at 687\u201388<\/a> (1984).<\/div>
\u200a52<\/a>\u200a<\/span>Strickland v. WA<\/i>, 466 U.S. at 687\u201388<\/a> (1984).<\/div>
\u200a53<\/a>\u200a<\/span>Strickland v. WA<\/i>, 466 U.S. at 687\u201388<\/a> (1984).<\/div>
\u200a54<\/a>\u200a<\/span>State v. Hitchens<\/i>, 294 N.W.2d 686<\/a> (N.J. Super. App. Div. 1980); State v. Ellerman<\/i>, No. A-3632-14T3<\/a> (N.J. Super. App. Div. 2017).<\/div>
\u200a55<\/a>\u200a<\/span>State v. DiFrisco<\/i>, 137 N.J. 434, 456\u201357<\/a> (N.J. 1994) (citing State v. Fritz<\/i>, 105 N.J. 42, 58<\/a> (N.J. 1987)).<\/div>
\u200a56<\/a>\u200a<\/span>State v. Marolda<\/i>, 927 A.2d 154<\/a> (N.J. Super. App. Div. 2007); See<\/i> State v. Hitchens<\/i>, 294 N.W.2d 686<\/a> (N.J. Super. App. Div. 1980).<\/div>
\u200a57<\/a>\u200a<\/span>State v. Marolda<\/i>, 927 A.2d 154<\/a> (N.J. Super. App. Div. 2007).<\/div>
\u200a58<\/a>\u200a<\/span>State v. Hitchens<\/i>, 294 N.W.2d 686<\/a> (N.J. Super. App. Div. 1980).<\/div>
\u200a59<\/a>\u200a<\/span>State v. DiFrisco<\/i>, 137 N.J. at 457<\/a> (N.J. 1994) (quoting Tollett v. Henderson<\/i>, 411 U.S. 258, 266<\/a> (1973) and Hill v. Lockhart,<\/i> 474 U.S. 52, 58<\/a> (1985)).<\/div>
\u200a60<\/a>\u200a<\/span>Strickland v. WA<\/i>, 466 U.S. at 687<\/a> (1984).<\/div>
\u200a61<\/a>\u200a<\/span>Revised Att\u2019y Gen. Guidelines for Negotiating Cases Under N.J.S.A.<\/i>, Brimage Guidelines 2<\/a> (2004).<\/span><\/div>
\u200a62<\/a>\u200a<\/span>Revised Att\u2019y Gen. Guidelines for Negotiating Cases Under N.J.S.A.<\/i>, Brimage Guidelines 2<\/a> (2004).<\/span><\/div>
\u200a63<\/a>\u200a<\/span>State v. Coulter, <\/i>742 A.2d 579<\/a> <\/i>(N.J. Super. App. Div. 1999)<\/div>
\u200a64<\/a>\u200a<\/span>State v. Hitchens<\/i>, 294 N.W.2d 686<\/a> (N.J. Super. App. Div. 1980).<\/div>
\u200a65<\/a>\u200a<\/span>See e.g., State v. Geiger<\/i>, No. A-5247-13T3<\/a> (N.J. Super. App. Div. 2016); State v. Marolda<\/i>, 927 A.2d 154<\/a> (N.J. Super. App. Div. 2007).<\/div>
\u200a66<\/a>\u200a<\/span>Ronald F. Wright, Symposium: Sentencing: What\u2019s at Stake for the States? Panel One: Prosecutorial Discretion and its Challenges: Sentencing Commissions as Provocateurs of Prosecutorial Self-Regulation<\/i>, 105 Colum. L. Rev. 1010, 1030\u201331<\/a> (2005); Revised Att\u2019y Gen. Guidelines for Negotiating Cases Under N.J.S.A.<\/i>, Brimage Guidelines 2<\/a> (2004).<\/span><\/div>\r\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Kelley Thompson, Esq.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"meta":{"_citation":"11 Stetson J. Advoc. & L. 99 (2024)","_first_para":99,"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-72615","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-35"]}