Judges should have the right to look at any plea deal they suspect may be questionable, and bring it to trial with the plea deal overriding only the sentencing portion but not the fact-determining portion of the trial. I suspect that any judge who did that would find factually innocent defendants and uncover major abuses of power.
Is there anything stopping a judge (other than time/resource availability) from doing this unilaterally?
Time and resource availability is the whole reason plea bargains happen to begin with.
Even if you hire more judges and build more courtrooms, going to trial may not help unless defendants get good lawyers who can spend a lot of time on their cases. These are not hallmarks of public defender offices in states with budget woes (i.e. almost all of them).
Judges have great discretion not to accept plea deals. A plea isn't just an arrangement between a defendant and a prosecutor. It involves an extended process where the defendant presents the plea to the judge and the prosecutor offers the facts it would offer at trial to prove the allegations.
>Judges should have the right to look at any plea deal they suspect may be questionable...
When a defendant changes their plea from guilty to either not guilty or no contest pursuant to a plea offer, a Judge always hears the offer and has the authority to accept or reject the offer. Moreover, pleas are evidentiary hearings so evidence of mitigating/aggravating facts can be introduced to help the judge make their decision. Typically, the facts will be limited to simply enough to establish there are facts sufficient, that if true, would result in a conviction). However, if the Judge has a problem with it (thinks the sentence is to light or to heavy) they will usually request evidence to justify the deal.
In addition to what people typically think about when they hear plea (defense and prosecutor working out a deal), often times the two parties can't come to an agreeable deal, and the defense will opt for an open plea to the court, essentially bypassing the prosecutor's offer and asking the Judge for exactly what they want, and then allowing the Judge to again make the final decision based on the evidence offered at the plea hearing.
How about, while we're at it, giving judges the ability to invalidate an arbitration clause when a case in their jurisdiction is brought to their attention and they deem it "worthy" of a full trial?
Is there anything stopping a judge (other than time/resource availability) from doing this unilaterally?