Incentives for guilty pleas

1. The question for this Court is whether a trial court's long held practice of offering "sweeteners" to induce defense counsel to coerce their clients into pleading guilty meets the Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994) "extrajudicial source" standard applied by this Court requiring recusal under 28 U.S.C. §455(a)? 2. The question for this Court is whether a court's long held practice of offering "sweeteners" to induce defense counsel to coerce their clients into pleading guilty is structural error as explained in Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510, 535 (1927) (no matter the evidence, there is the right to have an impartial judge) and Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 306 (1991) (structural error "affect[s] the framework within which the trial proceeds," as distinguished from a lapse or flaw that is "simply an error in the trial process itself")? 3. The question for this Court is whether the court's supervisory power under McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 322, 340 (1943) ("Judicial supervision of the administration of criminal justice in the Federal Courts implies the duty of establishing and maintaining civilized standards of procedure and evidence.") is invoked to correct a trial court's long standing policy and practice of offering inducements or "sweeteners" to defense counsel in secret to coerce their clients to plead guilty?