|
||||
|
||||
Deal or No Deal: Why Courts Should Allow Defendants to Present Evidence that They Rejected Favorable Plea BargainsColin MillerUniversity of South Carolina School of Law August 17, 2010 Kansas Law Review, Vol. 59, No. 407, 2011 Abstract: Federal Rule of Evidence 410 deems inadmissible statements made during plea discussions when offered “against the defendant who made the plea or was a participant in plea discussions…” Pursuant to the Supreme Court’s opinion in United States v. Mezzanatto, however, prosecutors can, and often do, force defendants to waive the protections of this Rule to get to the plea bargaining table. Conversely, courts categorically have found that defendants cannot present evidence that they rejected favorable plea bargains, despite the plain language of the Rule not precluding the admission of such evidence. This article addresses the question of whether courts can consistently allow prosecutors to present defendants’ incriminatory statements made during plea discussions while precluding those same defendants from presenting evidence that they rejected favorable plea bargains. It concludes that courts cannot prevent defendants from presenting evidence that they rejected favorable plea bargains based upon Mezzanatto and that none of the arguments against admissibility hold water.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 61 Keywords: Plea Bargaining, Mezzanatto, Federal Rule of Evidence 410 JEL Classification: K14, K42 Accepted Paper SeriesDate posted: August 18, 2010 ; Last revised: September 19, 2012Suggested CitationContact Information
|
|
|||||||||||||||
© 2013 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
FAQ
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
Copyright
This page was processed by apollo2 in 1.500 seconds