Interestingly, the comments to the posted story identify facts establishing a complete lack of “judge-shopping.” The writer skates over the more significant problem–that a different judge can result in a drastically different outcome for a defendant.
This goes to show how arbitrary the justice system can be. One judge offers a deal of 6 months for a guilty plea for a particular crime. Another offers 3 months for that crime plus another crime which doubles as a bail violation.
Why does something like this not get assigned to the original judge?
I might be more upset at this case if it involved a real crime, rather than a victimless (drug) offense.
Like Richard, I am not sure from this article that judge-shopping took place. But maybe it did, through facts clear to the judge but not picked up by the reporter.
It would seem logical, as C suggests, that the original judge should at least have the *option* to retain jurisdiction over a case. Each State, of course, has its own rules of criminal procedure.
3 Comments
Interestingly, the comments to the posted story identify facts establishing a complete lack of “judge-shopping.” The writer skates over the more significant problem–that a different judge can result in a drastically different outcome for a defendant.
This goes to show how arbitrary the justice system can be. One judge offers a deal of 6 months for a guilty plea for a particular crime. Another offers 3 months for that crime plus another crime which doubles as a bail violation.
Why does something like this not get assigned to the original judge?
I might be more upset at this case if it involved a real crime, rather than a victimless (drug) offense.
Like Richard, I am not sure from this article that judge-shopping took place. But maybe it did, through facts clear to the judge but not picked up by the reporter.
It would seem logical, as C suggests, that the original judge should at least have the *option* to retain jurisdiction over a case. Each State, of course, has its own rules of criminal procedure.