Legal Opinion · Concurrence

People v. Heddins

Illinois Supreme Court

Decided April 5, 1977No. 48220Published

1Concurrence

MR. JUSTICE DOOLEY,

specially concurring:

I agree with the result reached by the majority. However, this case makes manifest the necessity for nonjudicial participation in the negotiations inherent in plea bargaining.

Here the trial court was telling the prosecutor what should be the terms of the plea bargain. This was error. The power of a court in plea bargaining is to accept or reject the particular bargain agreed upon by the parties. Rule 402(d) of this court (58 Ill. 2d R. 402(d)) prohibits the trial judge from initiating plea discussions. It further limits the power of the trial judge to…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Santobello v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  2. McCarthy v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  3. United States Ex Rel. Elksnis v. GilliganDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1966
  4. United States v. Honorable Henry F. Werker, United States District Judge, United States of America v. Harry Santos-FigueroaCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1976
  5. People v. BennettAppellate Court of Illinois · 1974

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API