Kozinski puts breaks via mandamus on US Attorney screwups

So, some defendants are pleading guilty before a magistrate to violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.  Then, when it comes time for the District Court to approve them, the US Attorneys say that the “magistrate judges had erred in conducting the Rule 11(b) colloquies.”  In particular, the government said that the magistrate didn’t inform the defendants of ““any maximum possible penalty.”  Strange.  Isn’t that rule there to help defendants.    The magistrate said that there was a 20 year max, but the District Court judge calculated the sentence at 2 years.  The government says that the magistrate harmed the defendant by telling him a the much larger sentence he could be theoretically subject to.

Then it becomes clear: the US Attorneys Office loves the smell of handcuffs, and they subsequently obtained a superceding indictment carrying more than 18 more years imprisonment than the first, as the US Attorneys screwed up the indictment and didn’t allege some things that would let them keep people in jail longer at taxpayer expense.  The District Court, of course, deferred to the US Attorney, because it also likes to keep people in jail at taxpayer expense.  Therefore, it saw fit to ignore Ninth Circuit precedent which holds that an unconditional guilty plea must be accepted so long as the factual predicates are there and the formalities are complied with.

Kozinski points out that there isn’t even a plea agreement in play here.  This was an unconditional guilty plea. Petitioner for writ of mandamus granted.