In State v. Shaw, 113N .J. 1 (1993), the New Jersey Supreme Court recognized in this regard that early disposition “is an important law-enforcement objective, thus harnessing the most efficient use of prosecutor, defense, and judge time.” It also is important to note that the Supreme Court, by its adoption of the so-called “plea cut off” rule codified in Rule 3:9-3(g), has acknowledged that there comes a time when plea discussions must end. That rule provides that after the pretrial conference has been conducted and a trial date has been set, the court may not accept a negotiated plea absent the approval of the Criminal Presiding Judge based on a material change of circumstances or the need to avoid a protracted trial ·or a manifest injustice.”
The Directive again omits how common it is for Presiding Judges to allow cases to resolve with a plea agreement even on the day of trial, long after the case has gone through plea cut-off. A common scenario involves the use of a form where the reason given for the required “material change of circumstances” is that a new plea offer was tendered. The details of the “new plea offer” are not reduced to writing, thereby enabling all parties to avoid a trial that is otherwise required by court rule or statute.