About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

7 Willamette L.J. 347 (1971)
People v. West, Recorded Plea Bargains

handle is hein.journals/willr7 and id is 349 raw text is: PEOPLE v. WEST,' RECORDED PLEA BARGAINS
Has anyone made any promises or representations to you
in order to induce you to plead guilty to this alleged viola-
tion? asks the judge. The defendant answers, No, sir. And
so the typical courtroom sham is enacted, a sorry conclusion
to the plea bargaining process.
However, in People v. West the Supreme Court of Cali-
fornia, noting the legitimization of the bargained guilty plea
by the United States Supreme Court in Brady v. United
States,2 seized the opportunity to bring the plea bargain out of
the backroom and into the trial record.3 The California Court
prefaced its decision with the following policy statement:
We undertake here to confirm the legality of the plea bar-
gain and to set up procedures for its acceptance or rejec-
tion in the strong light of full disclosure.4
The facts in People v. West are important only in that they
lead to a plea bargain; attention should be focused upon the
fact that a plea bargain was involved, and that the plea bar-
gain was not recorded when the defendant was convicted in
the Superior Court of Santa Clara County.5
A police officer, finding the defendant asleep in an automo-
1. 91 Cal. Rptr. 385, 477 P.2d 409 (1970).
2. 397 U.S. 742 (1970) (hereinafter cited as Brady).
3. The plea bargain was acknowledged in state courts prior to
the United States Supreme Court ruling in Brady v. United States,
397 U.S. 742 (1970), see Brewer v. People, 452 P.2d 370 (Colo. 1969);
Rose v. Gladden, 248 Or. 520, 433 P.2d 612 (1967); State v. Byrd, 453
P.2d 22 (Kan. 1969); State v. Turner, 452 P.2d 323 (Utah 1969).
However, all the above courts bypassed the issue of plea bargain dis-
closure. In State v. Carpenter, 467 P.2d 749 (Ariz. 1970), that court
came close in effect to what the California Supreme Court in People
v. West sought to require, i.e., the recording of the plea bargain in
the trial record. However, it appears to be more by chance than by
design. The intent of the trial judge was to record the defendant's
voluntary and knowledgeable guilty plea and recording of the plea
bargain was only an incidental factor rather than a standard pro-
cedure.
4. 91 Cal. Rptr. 385, 387, 477 P.2d 409, 410.
5. The purpose of this casenote is not to analyze the perspec-
tive roles of the prosecutor, defense counsel, or judge in the plea
bargaining process, or for that matter, the validity of the plea bar-
gaining process in itself. See generally Alschuler, The Prosecutor's
Role in Plea Bargaining, 6 U. C i. L. REv. 50 (1968); Vetri, Guilty
Plea Bargaining: Compromises by Prosecutors to Secure Guilty
Pleas, 112 U. PA. L. REv. 865 (1964); American Bar Association Project
on Minimum Standards For Criminal Justice, Standards Relating To
Pleas of Guilty, Approved Draft, 1968.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

profiles profiles most