https://static.wixstatic.com/media/9022a6_9bf6ddea71f64bc3911f752b299ab7d5mv2.jpg/v1/fill/w_630,h_420,al_c,q_80,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01/9022a6_9bf6ddea71f64bc3911f752b299ab7d5mv2.webp
Hello Steemers! In my legal ethics class, we are looking at the world of criminal law. I found a court case that can be used as a great example of criminal law in action. The case can be found in the Harvard Law Review. This one is a very interesting read.
Court Case: United States v. Walker
Topic: Criminal Law
Date: June 26, 2017
Link: https://harvardlawreview.org/2018/05/united-states-v-walker/
Case Summary:
The Opioid Epidemic is a real problem facing the United States. Because it has become a growing issue in recent years, the use of opioids has created an increase in public opinion and debate on the matter. In the court case presented, United States v. Walker, a federal judge denied a plea deal in a drug case with the reasoning that the bargain itself went against the public interest.
Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure grants a judge the discretion to deny a plea bargain without posing any guidelines about what the parameters are for making the decision to deny the bargain. This judge made the case that the public has an interest in participating in the criminal justice system through open jury trials. He also agreed that the jury trial can use public opinion and experience to reveal the details and consequences of drug abuse and drug distribution. These details and public opinions can be more complex and informative by taking this avenue compared to a standard guilty plea bargain.
On July 14, 2016, the Metropolitan Drug Enforcement Network Team (MDENT) arrested Charles Walker after using confidential informants to conduct seven different drug transactions including heroin and fentanyl. He was indicted on three counts of distributing heroin and two more counts for the distribution of fentanyl. In addition to this, the defendant was found illegally possessing a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Walker entered a plea bargain where he would plead guilty to a separate single-count information of possession of heroin and the intent to distribute. In return, the government would dismiss the charges from the grand jury formal accusation. This seems to be an easy way out for the defendant. On June 26, 2017, Judge Goodwin rejected the plea agreement after reviewing a presentence investigation report on Walker.
This court case pertains to criminal law, which is one of the topics in our readings for this week. According to chapter 1 of our curriculum, criminal law is concerned with the negative actions committed against the public as a whole. These criminal acts against the public are defined as well as prohibited by local, state, and federal government statutes. This is what makes criminal law different when compared to civil law. Judge Goodwin expressed that if a criminal case is not brought to trial, the people are denied their right to participate in the administration and practice of the criminal justice system. This case is a good representation of the argument against the use of such bargains in the context of crimes that are related to different public health crises.
In summation, I leave you all with these very important questions; Do you agree or disagree with Judge Goodwin’s decision? Do you think that plea bargains are harmful to the use of public opinion and input regarding important public health matters? Do you think this way of thinking should be implemented across all cases regarding public opinion, as well as crimes committed against the public? Lastly, are there any potentially negative impacts of the court ruling? I can’t wait to hear some feedback on this interesting topic.
- Leave a comment below and start the conversation!