Description

This paper examines the question of whether or not the court has a right to intervene on a prosecutor’s decision that was made within their discretion and analyze it to ensure it was made in “good faith.” This issue comes from a circuit split in the 10th circuit regarding plea agreements, United States v. Doe. The defendant appealed the first verdict and one of the grounds on which Doe appealed was that the prosecutor acted in bad faith when they refused to file a substantial assistance motion. While this decision was within the prosecutor’s discretion, the court is still faced with the question of how far discretion can stretch, that question is what this paper analyzes; textually. The two sides come from two different cases, United States v. Isaac, stated that the prosecutor has sole discretion not to file and the court cannot intervene one way or another. However, on the other side, United States v. Aderholt stated that while the prosecutor has discretion, that can be lost when they act in “bad faith,” which can be defined as doing something unconstitutional. The Court in Doe ruled with the precedent of Aderholt but remanded the decision to be sent down to the lower courts for further analysis. Additionally, to the question of court intervention of prosecutor’s discretion, this paper also analyzes the question of what Constitutional rights the defendant in a plea agreement has. Textually analyzing both cases, using relevant precedent to aid in providing a full perspective on the questions presented. Finally, this paper ends briefly by using textual evidence to recommend an answer to the question of court intervention on prosecutor’s discretion.

Comments