Evidence—Admissibility of an Offer to Plead Guilty Made for Bargaining Purposes: People v. Hamilton, 60 Cal. 2d 105, 383 P.2d 412, 32 Cal. Rptr. 4 (1963), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 921 (1967)

Authors

John Atwood, University of Nebraska College of Law

Abstract

California changed its common law when by statute it made attempts to plea bargain inadmissible. It would be only naive, given the present status of our criminal justice system, to maintain that the practice of "plea bargaining" can, should, or will be eliminated in the near future. Although the practice gives rise to serious problems, there are important arguments for preserving it. Pragmatically, our already overtaxed criminal justice system simply cannot provide the number of judges, prosecutors, and defense counsel necessary to operate a system in which most defendants go to trial. Present programs to expand appointment of counsel for indigents promise to strain available resources for some time to come. At best, our adversary system is an imperfect method of factfinding. Plea negotiation is an inherent facet of prosecutorial discretion, which discretion is vitally needed when one considers the myriad possible fact situations that could possibly fall under a particular statute or statutes.

Recommended Citation

John Atwood, Evidence—Admissibility of an Offer to Plead Guilty Made for Bargaining Purposes: People v. Hamilton, 60 Cal. 2d 105, 383 P.2d 412, 32 Cal. Rptr. 4 (1963), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 921 (1967), 48 Neb. L. Rev. 272 (1969)
Available at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr/vol48/iss1/11