Full Answer Section

• Community Trust: When prosecutors consider social justice, it fosters trust between the justice system and minority communities.
• Case Example: State v. Underwood (2014) – This case highlights potential racial bias in charging decisions. The court overturned a defendant’s drug conviction, finding the prosecutor’s race-neutral explanation “implausible” due to a history of charging minorities with harsher offenses.

Arguments Against Howell’s Position:

• Prosecutorial Discretion: Unfettered discretion allows prosecutors to tailor prosecutions to specific community needs and crime trends. (See LaFayette v. Louisiana (1977))
• Prosecutorial Independence: Limiting prosecutorial discretion could politicize charging decisions.
• Standardization: Objective standards for charging decisions are difficult to establish, potentially leading to inconsistency within the legal system.
• Victim Rights: Focusing solely on social justice may disregard the rights and needs of crime victims.
• Resource Allocation: Prosecutors need flexibility to prioritize cases based on available resources.

Case of Defendant A:

1. Charging Decision:

Based on Florida Statute 893.135, Defendant A does not qualify for a trafficking charge. The statute outlines specific quantities for trafficking various controlled substances, and 14 grams of oxycodone falls below the trafficking threshold.

Here’s the breakdown:

• Possession of 7 grams or more of oxycodone qualifies as trafficking in the first degree.
• Possession of an amount less than 7 grams could be charged as a lesser offense, such as possession with intent to sell or deliver.

Factors to Consider:

• No Prior Convictions: A’s lack of criminal history suggests this might be an isolated incident due to addiction.
• Informant Reliability: The unreliable informant casts doubt on the controlled buy’s legitimacy.
• Community Needs: While drug problems exist, A’s case might not represent a major supplier.

Given these factors, you might decline to prosecute A altogether, or consider a charge of possession with intent to sell (a lesser offense).

1. Plea Bargaining:

Prosecutorial Goal:

• Obtain information on major suppliers: Since A is unlikely to cooperate due to fear of retaliation, focus on securing A’s assistance in identifying suppliers.
• Reduced Sentence: Offer A a lenient sentence (e.g., probation or drug treatment program) in exchange for information and cooperation.

Defense Attorney’s Advice:

• Weigh the risks and benefits of cooperating.
• Highlight A’s addiction and lack of prior record.
• Negotiate the best possible plea deal (reduced charge, minimal jail time).

Hard Bargaining’s Impact on A:

• Pressure to Cooperate: A might feel pressured to cooperate to avoid harsher penalties.
• Risk of Retaliation: Fear of retaliation from suppliers might outweigh the plea deal’s benefits.
• Decision-Making: A’s decision will depend on the severity of the plea offer and the perceived risk of cooperating.

Conclusion:

Prosecutorial discretion requires balancing justice, social impact, and community needs. While Howell raises valid concerns about social equity, prosecutors also need to consider public safety and resource allocation. In A’s case, the prosecutor might prioritize information leading to major suppliers, potentially offering a lenient plea bargain in exchange for cooperation.