I'm working on an interesting pro bono case involving the crime victims' right to object to a plea agreement in federal court under the Crime Victims Rights Act. It arises out the Texas City Refinery explosion in March 2005, which left 15 dead, hundreds injured, and untold property damage.

Recently the responsible corporation -- BP Products North America -- agreed to pled guilty to a criminal violation of the Clean Air Act. But the plea agreement is a "binding" plea agreement -- that is, the judge would have no discretion in sentencing. The plea agreement obligates BP Products North America to pay a $50 million fine and do essentially nothing more to ensure plant safety than abide by previous agreements with federal and state regulators.

Along with other pro bono lawyers in Texas, I represent some of the victims of the explosion. They would like the judge to reject the plea and send the parties back to the drawing board to negotiate more safety measures and a more appropriate -- and tougher -- penalty.

Today the other lawyers and I filed pleadings in the federal district court in Texas. Our pleadings argue the court should reject the plea because the proposed plea blocks the court from appointing its own independent safety monitor to supervise BP Products' environmental compliance. The pleadings also argue that since the statutory maximum fine in this case (based on the gain to the company or loss to the victims) is more than $2 billion, a substantially larger fine is appropriate.

The larger issue here is what role the fedeal courts will give crime victims in these kidns of issues. Under the new Crime Victims Rights Act, crime victims have the right to "heard" on any proposed plea. On Monday, I will be in Houston helping victims exercise that right.