NCJ Number
86101
Journal
Criminal Law Bulletin Volume: 18 Issue: 5 Dated: (September/October 1982) Pages: 442-450
Date Published
1982
Length
9 pages
Annotation
The admissibility as evidence of statements made during plea bargaining or to law enforcement officials is examined, with emphasis on Federal Rule of Evidence 410 and Rule 11(e) (6) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Abstract
Plea bargaining requires frank communication among the defendant, the defendant's counsel, and the government. However, no defendant or defense counsel will pursue such an effort if statements made during discussion can be admitted in evidence as proof of guilt if the plea negotiations fail. Thus, statements made during plea discussions are generally not admissible against the defendant in any civil or criminal proceeding. The rule regarding inadmissibility applies to discussions where the defendant had an actual and reasonable subjective expectation that plea bargaining was in progress. Mere hope of obtaining leniency is not enough, however; the discussion must seek a concession in exchange for a plea. Thus, unconditional or volunteered admissions or confessions by the accused are outside the scope of exclusion provided by Rule 410. However, a guilty plea not withdrawn is generally admissible in a subsequent civil or criminal action arising out of the same facts, because it admits all matters well-pleaded in the indictment of information. In addition, the plea discussions must have been conducted by the attorney for the government and the attorney for the defendant or the defendant. No provision is made for the exclusion of statements made by the accused during plea bargaining with a law enforcement official, since Rule 410 was amended in 1980. Statements made to law enforcement officials are generally admissible. Whether this is desirable is debatable. Reference notes are included.