PBI Files Amicus Brief in New York State Court of Appeals Related to Juvenile Plea Bargaining

At issue in the case is the validity of a juvenile’s waiver of appellate review of a criminal court’s refusal to remove their case to Family Court as part of a plea bargain. The brief argued that certain rights are so fundamental to the integrity of the criminal system that they should not be waived pursuant to a plea agreement, and that these rights should include the right to challenge the denial of removal from criminal court to Family Court. The brief further argued that if such juvenile appellate waivers were permitted, there should be a searching judicial inquiry into the juvenile’s understanding of the waiver.

To support these arguments, the PBI brief provided the court with significant social science research regarding juveniles and their decision-making. For example, the brief explained: “Defendants are often confused about the nature of plea agreements. Boilerplate agreements are written in complicated legal jargon that can be hard for the average criminal defendant to decipher, let alone a 17-year-old defendant. Research suggests that the average tender of plea form for criminal and juvenile courts requires an 11th to 12th grade reading level for full understanding. However, most defendants – even adults – read at a 6th grade level or below.” (citations omitted)

Professor Thea Johnson of Rutgers Law School, the primary author of the brief, commented, “The Ogden case exemplifies the problem with the modern trend in criminal courts to require defendants to waive all sorts of rights when they enter a plea agreement. In Ogden, a 17-year-old defendant gave up his right to challenge a trial judge’s decision to keep him in adult criminal court, rather than move him to family court. The consequences were severe. The defendant received a 12-year sentence, something that would not have even been possible had his case been tried in family court.  In the Ogden case, PBI is urging the New York Court of Appeals to recognize the need for a robust right to appeal, especially where juvenile defendants are involved. Appellate review promotes transparency, fairness, and the development of the law. As the Supreme Court recently noted in the Hunter decision, the public may question the integrity of a system that blindly enforces appellate waivers. We look forward to the Court’s decision.”

As the courts continue to examine the role of plea bargaining in our modern system of criminal law and determine the appropriate limitations and guardrails, the Plea Bargaining Institute remains ready to assist by providing the courts with information regarding the leading research in the field to help inform and guide their decision-making.

The brief in the Ogden case was authored by Professor Thea Johnson, Acting Vice Dean and Professor of Law at Rutgers Law School, Dr. Rebecca K. Helm, Professor of Law and Empirical Legal Studies and Director of the Evidence Based Justice Lab at the University of Exeter, and Dr. Miko Wilford, Associate Professor at Iowa State University. Norman L. Reimer and Ethan F. Davis of Vladeck, Raskin & Clark assisted in the preparation of the brief and served as local counsel. The Plea Bargaining Institute thanks each for their contributions to this important work and thanks Vladeck, Raskin & Clark for their pro bono representation of the PBI.