News / The Fair And Just Journal

The Right to Trial Act (2026) would help protect one of the Constitution’s most fundamental guarantees: the right to trial by jury.

The bill responds to growing concerns about the “trial penalty,” the substantial disparity between the sentences prosecutors offer during plea negotiations and the sentences that are actually imposed after an accused exercises their right to a trial. When individuals face significantly harsher punishment for exercising their constitutional rights, the fairness and legitimacy of the justice system are called into question.

By giving judges additional authority to consider whether a sentence effectively punishes a defendant for going to trial, the legislation would strengthen constitutional protections, promote proportional sentencing, and reinforce public confidence in the justice system.

Executive Summary

• The Right to Trial Act seeks to protect the Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury.
• The bill requires federal judges to consider whether a sentence effectively penalizes a defendant for exercising the right to trial.
• Courts would be directed to consider the terms of plea offers and sentences imposed on similarly situated defendants when determining an appropriate sentence after a trial.
• Judges would have authority to deviate from an otherwise applicable mandatory minimum when necessary to prevent punishment for exercising the right to trial.
• The legislation promotes fairness, transparency, and public confidence in the justice system while preserving judicial discretion.
• Fair and Just Prosecution supports the bill because exercising constitutional rights should not carry punitive consequences.

The Trial Penalty Undermines Confidence in the Justice System

The Sixth Amendment guarantees every person accused of a crime the right to a trial by a jury of their peers. That right serves as an essential safeguard against government overreach and helps ensure that criminal convictions are based on evidence that has been scrutinized through fair and transparent processes.

Yet trials have become increasingly rare in the criminal justice system. Many defendants face the possibility of substantially longer sentences if they proceed to trial rather than accept a prosecutor’s plea offer.

When exercising a constitutional right carries the risk of dramatically increased punishment, the right itself becomes less meaningful. Such disparities can undermine confidence that outcomes are based on the facts of a case rather than a defendant’s fear of receiving a much longer sentence should they exercise their constitutional rights.

What the Right to Trial Act Would Do

The legislation amends federal sentencing law to require courts to consider the need to protect the constitutional right to trial when imposing a sentence.

Specifically, judges would be directed to consider:

• whether a sentence increase is tied to a defendant’s decision to proceed to trial;
• plea offers made in the case; and
• sentences imposed on similarly situated defendants who pleaded guilty.

The bill would also authorize judges to impose a sentence below an otherwise applicable statutory minimum when application of the mandatory minimum would effectively function as a penalty for exercising the constitutional right to trial.

These reforms would not eliminate plea bargaining or prevent judges from imposing appropriate sentences. Instead, they provide courts with additional tools to ensure that constitutional rights are protected during the sentencing process.

Why This Matters

Protecting Constitutional Rights Promotes Justice

Prosecutors are ministers of justice whose responsibility extends beyond securing convictions. Maintaining public confidence in the justice system requires procedures that are fair, transparent, and consistent with constitutional values.

A just sentence should be driven by the conduct at issue, the facts of the case, and the interests of justice, not by whether a person chooses to exercise the constitutional right to trial. If a particular sentence is appropriate when a defendant accepts responsibility through a plea agreement, dramatically increasing that sentence solely because the defendant required the government to prove its case at trial raises fundamental fairness concerns.

Trials play an essential role in safeguarding the integrity of the justice system. They require evidence to be subjected to scrutiny before the public in open court, expose weaknesses and errors that might otherwise go unseen, and allow juries to serve as an important check on government power. Protecting the right to trial helps ensure that convictions are reliable, proceedings are transparent, and legal outcomes are viewed as legitimate by the communities prosecutors serve.

FJP Position

Fair and Just Prosecution supports the Right to Trial Act because constitutional rights must remain meaningful in practice.

The legislation would help reduce sentencing disparities associated with the exercise of the right to trial, strengthen public confidence in the fairness of criminal proceedings, and provide judges with tools to address unjust outcomes when sentencing practices effectively penalize individuals for asserting constitutional protections.

By promoting fairness, proportionality, and accountability, the bill advances principles that are essential to a trustworthy and effective justice system.

Key Takeaway

Constitutional rights are meaningful only if people can exercise them without fear of punishment. The Right to Trial Act would help ensure that sentencing reflects the facts of a case and the interests of justice, not a defendant’s decision to require the government to prove its case before a jury.

Sources & Further Reading

• Right to Trial Act (H.R. 9095)
• National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers,
  The Trial Penalty: The Sixth Amendment Right to Trial on the Verge of Extinction and How to Save It (2018)
• FJP’s
  Plea Bargaining Issues at a Glance Brief