(2) Disclosure of a Plea agreement. The parties must disclose the appeal agreement at the time of filing, unless the court properly authorizes the parties to disclose the appeal agreement in camera. From an administrative point of view, the criminal justice system now depends on admissions of guilt and therefore on oral arguments. See the report of the Commission on Prosecutions and the Administration of Justice. B report from the task force. Courts 9 (1967); Note, Guilty Plea Bargaining: Compromises By Prosecutors To Secure Guilty Pleas, 112 U.Pa.L.Rev. 865 (1964). But opportunity is not the basis for recognizing the relevance of a practice of the plea agreement. Properly implemented, a plea agreement procedure is compatible with effective and fair management of criminal law. Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 92 P.C.
495, 30 L.Ed.2d 427. This is the conclusion of ABA standards for guilty pleas 1.8 (Approved Draft, 1968); ABA standards for prosecution and defence function P. 243-253 (Draft Approved, 1971); and ABA standards for the function of the criminal judge, No. 4.1 (App.Draft, 1972). The California Supreme Court recently recognized the relevance of oral arguments. See People v. West, 3 Cal.3d 595, 91 Cal.Rptr. 385, 477 pp. 2d 409 (1970).
A plea agreement procedure was recently decided in the District of Columbia Court of General Sessions on the recommendation of the U.S. Attorney General. See 51 F.R.D. 109 (1971). Sometimes a plea agreement is partially, but not entirely of the (B) type, as if an accused is charged with counts 1, 2 and 3, enters into an agreement with counsel for the government, and it is agreed that if the accused pleads guilty to counting 1, the prosecutor will recommend some punishment on that count and will travel for the release of counts 2 and 3. In such a case, the court must take particular care to ensure that the defendant understands which elements of the agreement contain only one (B) recommendation and which is not. In the foregoing, the part of the agreement providing for the rejection of points 2 and 3 is a Type A agreement and, therefore, under Rule 11(e.), the court must either accept or reject the agreement to dismiss those charges and allow the defendant to withdraw his plea. In the event of rejection, the defendant must be able to withdraw the ground from count 1, even if Type (B) promises to recommend a particular sanction on this point, since a multiple pleading agreement is nevertheless a single agreement. On the other hand, if counts 2 and 3 are dismissed and the criminal recommendation is made, the defendant is not entitled to withdraw his means, even if the sentence recommendation is not accepted by the Tribunal, since the defendant received everything owed to him under the various elements of the fundamental agreement.
Section 11, point (e), as proposed, allows each federal court to decide for itself to what extent it will authorize the hearing within its own jurisdiction. No court is required to enter a plea. Article 11, point (e) regulates oral arguments and agreements where and to the extent that the Tribunal authorizes such negotiations and agreements.