## Facts

- A statutory framework for plea agreements in criminal cases was enacted in 2009, allowing courts to indicate an expected sentencing range in return for a confession, while requiring public disclosure, documentation, and continued judicial truth-finding.
- Three convicted defendants filed consolidated constitutional complaints challenging convictions entered after plea agreements and, in part, challenging the constitutionality of the plea-agreement statute.
- The defendants alleged that plea practices in their cases included informal understandings not fully disclosed or recorded, including expectations about sentencing and treatment of other investigations or charges.
- In each case, the defendants confessed in reliance on the understandings, were convicted and sentenced, and largely failed on appeal in the ordinary criminal courts before seeking constitutional relief.
- The complaints asserted violations of constitutional guarantees associated with culpability-based punishment, fair trial protections, the presumption of innocence, and judicial neutrality.

## Issues

1. Whether the statutory framework authorizing plea agreements in criminal proceedings is consistent with constitutional requirements, including culpability-based punishment, truth-finding, fair trial guarantees, the presumption of innocence, and judicial neutrality.
2. Whether informal plea arrangements outside the statutory framework are constitutionally permissible.
3. Whether the plea agreements and ensuing trial and appellate proceedings in the complainants’ cases complied with constitutional and statutory safeguards.
4. Whether significant noncompliance in practice (“enforcement deficit”) renders the statutory scheme unconstitutional.

## Decision

- The court upheld the plea-agreement statute as constitutional at the time of decision, concluding that its design contains sufficient safeguards to protect constitutional guarantees.
- The court held the statutory scheme is exhaustive; informal agreements outside the statutory framework are impermissible.
- The court found constitutional violations in the handling of plea agreements in the individual cases, including failures of transparency/documentation and insufficient judicial verification of confessions.
- The court set aside the challenged appellate decisions and relevant portions of the trial judgments and remanded for further proceedings consistent with constitutional requirements.
- The court recognized a substantial enforcement deficit in practice but held it did not yet make the statute itself unconstitutional; it warned that persistent failure could require legislative correction or reconsideration of permitting plea agreements.

## Legal Principles

- Culpability-based punishment and the duty of courts to determine the material truth constrain plea agreements; truth-finding, legal subsumption, and sentencing principles cannot be left to the free disposition of the parties or the court.
- Plea agreements may be permitted for procedural efficiency only if the legal framework preserves: (i) truth-finding obligations, (ii) fair trial guarantees, (iii) the presumption of innocence, and (iv) judicial neutrality.
- Statutory safeguards—public disclosure in open court, recording/documentation, limits on permissible bargain content, and continued judicial scrutiny of confessions—are constitutionally required features of a valid plea system.
- Informal agreements outside the statutory framework, including undisclosed or undocumented understandings or promises about matters beyond the charged conduct, are unlawful and constitutionally suspect.
- A confession obtained through plea practices must be treated as evidence subject to critical judicial review; courts may not accept it at face value.
- Systemic noncompliance in practice does not automatically invalidate the statute, but ongoing monitoring and corrective legislative action are constitutionally required if safeguards prove ineffective.

## Conclusion

The court sustained the statutory authorization of plea agreements because its formal safeguards can protect culpability-based punishment, truth-finding, and fair trial guarantees, but it prohibited informal plea deals and vacated convictions where plea practices bypassed required transparency, documentation, and judicial verification.


Plea Agreement Case (Verständigungsurteil), 2 BvR 2628/10 (BVerfG 2013)