United States v. Baker, Kenneth

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that trial judge violated Rule 11 by, among other things, encouraging the parties to reach a plea, and emphasizing that, to the extent possible, impose a sentence similar to a lenient sentence it had imposed in another similar case
• finding reversible error notwithstanding district court’s “attempt[] to remedy its error during the plea colloquy”
• finding the defendant was prejudiced where defendant’s counsel informed that court that the defendant wished to plead guilty one day after the district court’s improper comments
• calling the proper standard of review a “close question” in light of “the virtual catch-22 defendants are faced with when courts inject themselves into plea negotiations”
• finding plain error where the trial judge repeatedly referred to a “year and a day” sentence that he gave to another defendant charged with a similar crime and stated, “I would probably be just as consistent here”
• there is “no room for doubt” that the “purpose and meaning” of Rule 11(c)(1

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).