Many of the pleading cases were broken with the violation of a prosecutor rather than that of a trial judge. In many cases, the importance of the integrity of executive conduct in the administration of justice was emphasized. “What is at stake is more than the freedom of this accused. The honour of government is public confidence in the fair administration of justice and the administration of justice. (United States v. Carter (4th Cir. 1972) (in bench) 454 F.2d 426, 428.) Integrity is an important quality in a judicial officer. Integrity in the criminal justice system is obviously no less important. The unconditional commitments of the procedural judge in this case should be respected. By the majority`s admission, Kaanehe`s explanatory memorandum for non-application of the plea does not exist in this case.

The majority opinion implies that, because the plaintiff violated his parole, this court is not required to correct the agreement not reached by the trial judge on the resulting sentence. Damages to a person who relies on the word of a trial judge are not weighted because the promise was made to an offender. [29 Cal.3d 681] With this reasoning, it is not surprising that the majority is satisfied with a means that other courts have deemed “insignificant” and “sacred” in similar circumstances. (Palermo v. Warden, Green Haven State Prison, a. a.o., 545 F.2d at p. 297; Correale v. United States, a. O., 479 F.2d to p. 950.) FN 4. But see Broken Plea Bargains, above, 66 Cal.L.Rev.

at pages 512-528, which argue that Santobello v. New York, a.o.a., 404 U.S.