THE CHAPTER ASSERTS THAT TRUE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TRIAL JUDGE AND THE PROSECUTOR IS OFTEN ONE OF BOTH COOPERATION AND CONFLICT CAUSED BY THE NECESSITY OF AVOIDING EVEN THE APPEARANCE OF UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR.
THE ROLE OF TRIAL JUDGE IS THAT OF IMPARTIAL ARBITER WITH POWER TO CURB BOTH ADVERSARIES. A JUDGE'S RESPONSIBILITIES INCLUDE WARRANT REVIEW, PRETRIAL RELEASE, EFFICIENT PRETRIAL PROCEDURES, CALENDAR MANAGEMENT, MAINTENANCE OF COURTROOM DECORUM, AND SENTENCING. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TRIAL JUDGE AND THE PROSECUTOR IS PRIMARILY GOVERNED BY SEPARATION OF POWERS. CONFLICTS MAY ARISE FROM DECISION OF JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT (E.G., DECLINING TO ISSUE A WARRANT AND RELEASING AN ACCUSED OVER GOVERNMENT OBJECTIONS), CALENDAR MANAGEMENT, AND JUDICIAL INTERFERENCE IN THE PROSECUTION FUNCTIONS, AS REVIEWED IN UNITED STATES V. SMITH AND UNITED STATES V. COWAN. HOWEVER, MAXIMUM COOPERATION CAN PREVENT UNNECESSARY CONFRONTATION AND SERVE THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION STANDARDS AND CANON 3A(4) OF THE CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT SERVE TO FORMALIZE COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN THE JUDGE AND THE PROSECUTOR TO AVOID FREQUENT CONTACTS WHICH MIGHT LEAD TO UNETHICAL CONDUCT AFFECTING A TRIAL'S OUTCOME. A 1972 SURVEY OF PROSECUTORS BY THE NATIONAL COLLEGE OF DISTRICT ATTORNEYS REVEALED COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE JUDICIARY. COMPLAINTS FROM JUDGES ABOUT PROSECUTORS RANGE FROM OBSESSION WITH CONVICTION RATES LEADING TO INDISCRIMINATE PLEA BARGAINING TO DISREGARD OF CRIME VICTIMS AND OVERCHARGING OF CRIMINAL CASES. FOOTNOTES ARE PROVIDED. FOR RELATED DOCUMENTS, SEE NCJ 69153, 69154, 69157, 69158, 69160, 69161.