MARSHALL HARTMAN, NATIONAL DIRECTOR OF DEFENDER SERVICES FOR THE NATIONAL LEGAL AID AND DEFENDERS ASSOCIATION, PROPOSES THAT THE SYSTEM OF PLEA BARGAINING BE ABOLISHED BECAUSE IT UNECONOMICALLY DEALS WITH THE MOUNTING DEMANDS ON THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM AND IT DEGRADES THE LAWYERS, JUDGES, PROSECUTORS, AND DEFENDANTS WHO USE IT. IN THIS ARTICLE, HARTMAN WAS INTERVIEWED IN AN EFFORT TO ELICIT HIS VIEWS ON PLEA BARGAINING. HARTMAN IS ALARMED BECAUSE THE ENTIRE SYSTEM OF PERSONNEL CASE ASSIGNMENTS AND COURT CASE FLOW MANAGEMENT IS BASED UPON AN AFFIRMATION OF PLEA BARGAINING AND ITS VALUE FOR THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM. HARTMAN CONSIDERS THE BASIC FORMAT OF PLEA BARGAINING, WHICH PROMISES A DEFENDANT A LIGHTER SENTENCE FOR PLEADING GUILTY, AS COMPARED TO A SENTENCE DERIVED FROM GUILT PROVEN IN A COURT TRIAL, TO BE BASICALLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL. ARGUING FROM DUNCAN V. LOUISIANA, 1968, WHICH HELD THAT THE RIGHT TO JURY TRIAL IS A GUARANTEED RIGHT UNDER THE SIXTH AMENDMENT, HARTMAN MAINTAINS THAT A PERSON CANNOT BE PENALIZED FOR EXERCISING A CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED RIGHT. A PERSON IS GIVEN A HEAVIER SENTENCE FOR HAVING HIS OR HER GUILT ESTABLISHED THROUGH A COURT TRIAL RATHER THAN DETERMINING GUILT THROUGH THE PLEA BARGAINING PROCESS. THEREFORE, DUE TO THE ENTICING LENIENCY OF PLEA BARGAINING MANY DEFENDANTS WHO ARE IN FACT INNOCENT PLEAD GUILTY IN ORDER TO AVOID THE RISK OF CONVICTION UNDER A MORE PUNITIVE SENTENCE IN A TRIAL. ELIMINATING PLEA BARGAINING MAY RESULT IN GREATER FINANCIAL COST TO THE TAXPAYER (DUE TO INCREASED COURT TIME AND HIRING MORE COURT PERSONNEL), BUT PRESERVING AND FOSTERING THE COURT TRIAL AS THE MEANS FOR ESTABLISHING THE GUILT OR INNOCENCE OF ACCUSED PERSONS IS VITAL TO THE AMERICAN JUSTICE SYSTEM. (RCB) THE COURT TRIAL AS THE MEANS FOR ESTABLISHING THE GUILT OR INNOCENCE OF ACCUSED PERSONS IS VITAL TO THE AMERICAN JUSTICE SYSTEM.