Wilson v. State, 845 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 2003)
Whenever a trial judge participates in a plea-agreement negotiation
and subsequently imposes a harsher post-trial sentence
than was offered to the defendant during those negotiations, a
totality-of-the-circumstances test determines whether a presumption
of vindictiveness arises from the judge’s actions. The proper
relief when the prosecution fails to rebut a presumption of judicial
vindictiveness is a remand to a different trial judge for resentencing.
…………………………………………………………………………………………..
Vindicating Vindictiveness: Prosecutorial Discretion and Plea Bargaining, Past and Future, Yale Law School
ABSTRACT. This Note explores the past and possible future of the doctrine of vindictive prosecution, which prohibits retaliation against a criminal defendant for the exercise of a legal right. It presents a new historical account of the doctrine’s accidental origins. It argues that a revitalized conception of vindictiveness may be relevant to current controversy and doctrinal innovation surrounding prosecutorial discretion and coercive plea bargaining. A rule prohibiting a prosecutor’s deliberate punishment of a defendant’s exercise of her right to trial may allow for substantive limits on prosecutorial discretion, but in a way that respects rather than undermines the right to trial.
AUTHOR. Yale Law School, J.D. 2013. I thank James Dawson, Ben Eidelson, Michael Graetz, and Linda Greenhouse for their thoughtful contributions.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
WITHOUT MERIT: THE EMPTY PROMISE OF JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE
Elena Ruth Sassower
Judicial independence is predicated on “good faith” decision-making. It was never intended to include “bad-faith” decision-making, where a judge knowingly and deliberately disregards the facts and law of a case. This is properly the subject of disciplinary review, irrespective of whether it is correctable on appeal. And egregious error is also misconduct, since its nature and/or magnitude presuppose that a judge acted willfully, or that he is incompetent.
………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Prosecutorial vindictiveness, Wikipedia
Prosecutor vindictiveness encompasses actions taken by a prosecutor to punish a defendant for not acceding to his demands. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the constitutional guarantee of due process protects a defendant against prosecutorial vindictiveness. To establish a prima facie case of prosecutorial vindictiveness, the defendant must show either direct evidence of actual vindictiveness or facts that warrant appearance of such. Blackledge v. Perry is the leading case in the realm of prosecutorial vindictiveness, but it has been limited by later decisions.[1] Some difficulty has been cited in prohibiting prosecutorial vindictiveness while preserving prosecutorial discretion.