Does Discretion Within Criminal Court Adjudication Compromise “Equal Justice for All”?

Abstract

The Oklahoma Constitution assures “[t]he courts of justice shall be open to every person . . . right and justice shall be administered without sale, denial, delay or prejudice.” Okla. Const. Art.2, Sect. 6. All forms of law establish substantive and procedural mandates within the criminal justice system to ensure uniform decision-making and a just outcome. Yet, discretion is exercised at every stage of the criminal justice system: to arrest or not, to file or not file charges, what charge(s) to file and whether to make a plea offer; to grant bail, continuances, admit evidence, and applicability of law are but of a few of the decisions made by law enforcement, prosecutors and judges reviewed primarily by an abuse of discretion. Reconciling the quest for uniformity against the backdrop of discretionary authority appears to render an oxymoronic outcome. This inquiry examines twelve months of criminal court cases for uniformity, statutory compliance and the lawful exercise of discretion.