I wonder if there's any chance this could be successfully challenged in the courts, under the argument that it effectively deprives most defendants of the right

I wonder if there's any chance this could be successfully challenged in the courts, under the argument that it effectively deprives most defendants of the right to a jury trial, as amply demonstrated by the statistics. I'm not sure what actual law would be challenged; maybe the mandatory minimum sentences. I googled it and found Brady v. United States, an old Supreme Court case along these lines from 1970 that failed - but the ruling contains this quote: > We would have serious doubts about this case if the encouragement of guilty pleas by offers of leniency substantially increased the likelihood that defendants, advised by competent counsel, would falsely condemn themselves. But our view is to the contrary, and is based on our expectations that courts will satisfy themselves that pleas of guilty are voluntarily and intelligently made by competent defendants with adequate advice of counsel, and that there is nothing to question the accuracy and reliability of the defendants' admissions that they committed the crimes with which they are charged. I think it'd be pretty hard to argue today that offers of leniency have not "substantially increased" the likelihood, indeed the occurrence, of false guilty pleas. For example, here is another recent New York Times article about low quality drug tests leading to guilty pleas, which describes one county discovering, in an unchecked email inbox, hundreds of old lab notices failing to confirm those tests, ultimately leading to convictions being overturned - all guilty pleas: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/10/magazine/how-a-2-roadside-drug-test-sends-innocent-people-to-jail.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/10/magazine/how-a-2-roadside-...