Falling through the Crack: How Courts Have Struggled to Apply the Crack Amendment to Nominal Career and Plea Bargain Defendants

Authors

Maxwell Arlie Halpern Kosman, University of Michigan Law School

Abstract

Under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, a defendant is normally obligated to attend all of the proceedings against her. However Rule 43(b)(2) carves out an exception for organizational defendants, stating that they "need not be present" if represented by an attorney. But on its face, the language of 43(b)(2) is ambiguous: is it the defendant or the judge who has the discretion to decide whether the defendant appears? That is, may a judge compel the presence of an organizational defendant? This Note addresses the ambiguity in the context of the plea colloquy, considering the text of several of the Rules, the purposes behind the plea colloquy proceeding, and the inherent powers doctrine. It argues that district court judges do in fact have the authority to compel an organizational defendant's presence at a plea colloquy.

Recommended Citation

Maxwell A. Kosman, Falling through the Crack: How Courts Have Struggled to Apply the Crack Amendment to Nominal Career and Plea Bargain Defendants, 109 Mich. L. Rev. 785 (2011).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol109/iss5/3