The New York Times today ran another story on troubled Bronx criminal courts. This time the report notes how a Brooklyn judge, Patricia DiMango, has helped to alleviate the Bronx criminal case disposition logjam. Judge DiMango's active, even forceful, participation in plea discussions is highlighted as contributing to her case disposition efficiency.
I generally appreciate when judges participate in plea discussions, so long as the participation remains balanced and respects the autonomy of the parties and their advocates. In some cases, however, this active judicial participation could push the envelope on Model Code of Judicial Conduct 2.6(B) and the voluntariness of a guilty plea. New York does not follow Federal Rule of Crim Pro 11(c)(1), which prohibits judges from participating in plea discussions between the defendant and the government--although the recent Davila harmless error decision may have taken the edge off of this categorical rule. Which approach better balances efficiency against the risk of judicial coercion in criminal cases--the prophylactic rule of Rule 11, or New York's case-by-case, individualized approach to judicial participation?