In a scathing critique of the modern criminal justice system, U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff has condemned the near-total replacement of jury trials with plea bargaining, calling it a “shadow justice system” that operates behind closed doors. In his ruling in United States v. Teimuraz Tavberidze,
Judge Rakoff highlights how the Sixth Amendment guarantee of a public trial has been eroded by a system where defendants are pressured into guilty pleas without public scrutiny.
“The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees every person accused of a federal felony the right to a speedy and public trial before a jury of the accused’s peers,” Rakoff wrote. “Yet, in reality, these functions are no longer being served, for the jury trial has been replaced, almost exclusively, by a system of secret plea-bargaining negotiations behind closed doors.”
Judge Rakoff cited federal statistics revealing that in 2024, only 2.4 percent of all federal felony indictments went to trial. “This paltry percentage has remained more or less constant for the past decade and more,” he noted, underscoring how the American justice system has strayed from its constitutional foundation.
The judge traced the rise of plea bargaining to the latter half of the 20th century, noting that while once the exception, it is now the overwhelming norm. “Today, nearly 98 percent of federal criminal cases end in guilty pleas, most of them the product of negotiated agreements between prosecutors and defense lawyers,” Rakoff wrote.
These agreements, he emphasized, are made with little to no judicial oversight. “Unlike in a public trial, where evidence is presented and tested before a jury, plea bargains are negotiated in secret, with prosecutors wielding significant power to dictate terms,” he explained.
Rakoff argued that this shift has led to coercive practices where defendants—many of whom may have viable defenses—accept plea deals to avoid the risk of harsh mandatory sentences if they choose to go to trial. “The reality is that for many accused individuals, the choice is illusory: risk decades in prison after trial, or plead guilty and receive a fraction of that time.”
Judge Rakoff laid much of the blame on prosecutorial discretion, which allows federal prosecutors to threaten defendants with excessive charges in order to secure guilty pleas. “Prosecutors, who control the charging decisions, also control the plea negotiations,” he wrote. “They can effectively dictate outcomes by selecting which charges to pursue and what sentencing recommendations to make.”
This imbalance in power has allowed for what Rakoff describes as “a systematic erosion of the right to trial.” He noted that harsh sentencing laws—especially those related to drug offenses and white-collar crimes—give prosecutors leverage over defendants who, in many cases, plead guilty out of fear rather than actual guilt.
“Defendants are often placed in a position where they must choose between a plea deal with a manageable sentence and the possibility of spending decades behind bars if convicted at trial,” he wrote.
Beyond undermining the Sixth Amendment, Rakoff argued that the dominance of plea bargaining carries broader societal consequences. “By eliminating trials, we have removed a key mechanism for public oversight of the criminal justice system,” he wrote. “Jury trials expose law enforcement misconduct, prosecutorial overreach, and weaknesses in the government’s case.”
Without trials, much of the justice system operates in secrecy. “The public has no ability to assess the strength or fairness of cases because they never go to trial. Prosecutors are not required to prove their allegations beyond a reasonable doubt, and judges rarely scrutinize the evidence supporting guilty pleas,” Rakoff explained.
He also pointed to the high incidence of wrongful convictions in plea-bargained cases, referencing research that suggests innocent defendants frequently plead guilty due to fear of harsher punishment. “Studies have shown that a significant percentage of exonerated individuals initially pleaded guilty to crimes they did not commit,” he warned.
Judge Rakoff’s decision does not merely diagnose the problem—it calls for a reassessment of how plea bargaining is used in federal courts. He suggested several potential reforms, including greater judicial oversight of plea agreements, enhanced transparency in the plea process, and a reevaluation of mandatory minimum sentencing laws that coerce guilty pleas.
“Reforming the system does not mean eliminating plea bargaining altogether,” Rakoff clarified. “But it does mean reintroducing fairness, oversight, and transparency into a process that has become dangerously lopsided.”
His ruling also urged courts to be more proactive in ensuring that defendants understand their rights and are not pleading guilty under duress. “Judges must take a more active role in scrutinizing plea deals to ensure they are truly voluntary and not the product of prosecutorial overreach.”
Legal experts are already hailing Rakoff’s ruling as one of the most forceful judicial critiques of plea bargaining in recent memory. “This opinion shines a spotlight on a long-ignored issue,” said a former federal public defender. “Judge Rakoff has articulated what many defense attorneys have been arguing for years: the justice system is no longer about trials, but about deal-making behind closed doors.”
However, others have pushed back against Rakoff’s conclusions, arguing that plea bargaining is necessary to manage the high volume of criminal cases. “If we eliminated plea bargaining, the court system would collapse under its own weight,” said a former federal prosecutor. “We simply don’t have the resources to take every case to trial.”
Yet, Rakoff’s ruling suggests that the efficiency argument cannot come at the expense of constitutional rights. “If maintaining a functioning justice system requires undermining the core protections of the Sixth Amendment, then it is not the justice system our Founders envisioned,” he wrote.
