United States v. Mezzanatto, 513 U.S. 196

Supreme Court of the United States

1995

Chapter

8

Title

A Return to Relevance I:  Limits Based on Policy

Page

360

Topic

FRE 410.  Inadmissibility of Pleas, Plea Discussions, and Related Statements

Quick Notes

Mezzanatto entered into plea negotiations with the prosecution, during which he agreed to waive the provisions of Fed. R. Evid. 410, which provided that statements made in the course of plea discussions between a criminal defendant and a prosecutor were inadmissible against the defendant. Discussions broke down between the parties and respondent was convicted at trial for possessing methamphetamine with intent to distribute. At trial, the prosecution impeached respondent with statements he had made during plea discussions. The court of appeals determined that respondent's conviction could not stand because the protections conferred by the plea-statement rules could not be waived. On petition to the Court, however, the Court ruled that, absent some affirmative indication that the agreement was entered into unknowingly or involuntarily, an agreement to waive the exclusionary provisions of the plea-statement rules was valid and enforceable. The Court found that such a rule would not bring plea bargaining to a halt, but might well have the opposite effect. Because respondent had voluntarily entered into the agreement, the evidence was properly admitted.

Court Waiver Rule

o         The absence of some affirmative indication that the agreement was entered into unknowingly or involuntarily, an agreement to waive the exclusionary provisions of the plea-statement Rules is valid and enforceable.

Book Name

Evidence: A Contemporary Approach.  Sydney Beckman, Susan Crump, Fred Galves.  ISBN:  978-0-314-19105-2.

Issue

o         Whether a defendants plea discussions are admissible if the defendant knowingly waives his right during discussion?  Yes.

Procedure

Trial

o         Mezzanatto was convicted

Appellant

o         Reversed District Courts conviction.

o         Held that statements made in the course of plea discussions between a criminal defendant and a prosecutor were inadmissible against a defendant, could not be waived.

Supreme

o         Reversed.  The court reversed the ruling of the court of appeals, finding that respondent did properly waive his rights to have the statements he made in plea negotiations excluded from his trial

Facts

Discussion

Key Phrases

Rules

Pl - United States

Df - Mezzanatto

Description

o         Mezzanatto was arrested and convicted for possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver.

Meeting with the prosecutor

o         He and his attorney met with the prosecutor to discuss cooperation with the government.

You need to be truthful, or ELSE

o         The prosecutor told the defendant he would have to be completely truthful and agree that any statements he made could be used to impeach any contradictory statement he made at trial if a plea could not be reached.

Discussion ended without plea agreement.

o         The prosecutor ended discussions because he believed the defendant was lying.

Allowed to impeach

o         The prosecutor was allowed to impeach the defendant with a statement he made to the contrary during the plea discussion.

Appellant Court

o         Reversed.

o         Holding that the defendant could not lawfully waive FRE 410.

Mezzanatto  plea statement rules guarantee to fair procedure cannot be waived

Court Agree with basic premise

o         But enforcement of agreements like respondent's plainly will not have that effect.

o         The admission of plea statements for impeachment purposes enhances the truth-seeking function of trials and will result in more accurate verdicts

Mezzanatto  A  waiver is fundamentally inconsistent

o         A  waiver is fundamentally inconsistent with the Rules' goal of encouraging voluntary settlement.

o         Because the prospect of waiver may make defendants "think twice" before entering into any plea negotiation, respondent suggests that enforcement of waiver agreements acts "as a brake, not as a facilitator, to the plea-bargain process."

Court no basis for concluding that waiver will interfere

o         There is no basis for concluding that waiver will interfere with the Rules' goal of encouraging plea bargaining.

o         The court below focused entirely on the defendant's incentives and completely ignored the other essential party to the transaction: the prosecutor.

o         Thus, although the availability of waiver may discourage some defendants from negotiating, it is also true that prosecutors may be unwilling to proceed without it.

Mezzanatto  Waivers invite prosecutorial overreaching and abuse

o         The waiver agreements should be forbidden because they invite prosecutorial overreaching and abuse.

o         There is a "gross disparity" in the relative bargaining power of the parties to a plea agreement and suggests that a waiver agreement is "inherently unfair and coercive."

o         Because the prosecutor retains the discretion to "reward defendants for their substantial assistance" under the Sentencing Guidelines, respondent argues that defendants face an "'incredible dilemma'" when they are asked to accept waiver as the price of entering plea discussions.

Court This is no different than any difficult choice of a criminal defendant.

o         We have repeatedly held that the government "may encourage a guilty plea by offering substantial benefits in return for the plea."

o         "While confronting a defendant with the risk of more severe punishment clearly may have a 'discouraging effect on the defendant's assertion of his trial rights, the imposition of these difficult choices [is] an inevitable' -- and permissible -- 'attribute of any legitimate system which tolerates and encourages the negotiation of pleas.

Court determining fraud in waiver agreements is a case by case basis.

Court Waiver Rule

o         The absence of some affirmative indication that the agreement was entered into unknowingly or involuntarily, an agreement to waive the exclusionary provisions of the plea-statement Rules is valid and enforceable.

Concurrence Justice Ginsburg, Justice OConnor, Justice Breyer

o         Use of such statements would severely undermine a Df - incentive to negotiate, and thereby inhibit plea bargaining.

Dissent Justice Souter, Justice Stevens

o         Legislative history showed Congress meant to create something more than a person right shielding an individual from his imprudence.

Rules

Court Waiver Rule

o         The absence of some affirmative indication that the agreement was entered into unknowingly or involuntarily, an agreement to waive the exclusionary provisions of the plea-statement Rules is valid and enforceable.

Rule 410. Inadmissibility of Pleas, Plea Discussions, and Related Statements

o    Except as otherwise provided in this rule, evidence of the following is not, in any civil or criminal proceeding, admissible against the defendant who made the plea or was a participant in the plea discussions:

o    (1) a plea of guilty which was later withdrawn;

o    (2) a plea of nolo contendere;

o    I do not wish to contend.  No contest.  Used when a criminal Df - does not want his plea to be used against him in a subsequent civil lawsuit arising out of the same facts.

o    (3) any statement made in the course of any proceedings under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure or comparable state procedure regarding either of the foregoing pleas; or

o    (4) any statement made in the course of plea discussions with an attorney for the prosecuting authority which do not result in a plea of guilty or which result in a plea of guilty later withdrawn.

Exceptions

o    However, such a statement is admissible

o    (i) in any proceeding wherein ANOTHER statement made in the course of the same plea or plea discussions has been introduced and the statement ought in fairness be considered contemporaneously with it, or

o    (ii) in a CRIMINAL proceeding for perjury or false statement if the statement was made by the defendant under OATH, on the record and in the presence of counsel.

Class Notes