United States v. Charles R. Crowell

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that when a defendant who went to trial challenges court participation in plea negotiations, he must establish that the participation “affected the court’s impartiality in the conduct of the trial or sentencing”
• concluding district court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting plea agreement as unduly lenient given large number of victims and protracted course of fraudulent activity
• stating that the court’s “evaluation [of a plea agreement] may include a consideration of the punishment allowable under the agreement, as compared to the punishment appropriate for the defendant’s conduct as a whole”
• noting that while the district court is expected to take an active role in evaluating a plea agreement once it is disclosed, it crosses over the line established by Rule 11(c)(1
• finding it \critical\ that the court's comments were \injected into the discussions while the parties were still preparing the [plea] agreement\
• finding a violation of Rule 11 in district court’s suggestion that, for a plea to be acceptable, “a sentence significantly in excess of what [Crowell] likely would serve under the prior ... plea agreement would be required”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).