Download this Paper Open PDF in Browser

Deal or No Deal: Why Courts Should Allow Defendants to Present Evidence that They Rejected Favorable Plea Bargains

61 Pages Posted: 18 Aug 2010 Last revised: 19 Sep 2012

Colin Miller

University of South Carolina School of Law

Date Written: August 17, 2010

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.

Keywords: Plea Bargaining, Mezzanatto, Federal Rule of Evidence 410

JEL Classification: K14, K42

Suggested Citation

Miller, Colin, Deal or No Deal: Why Courts Should Allow Defendants to Present Evidence that They Rejected Favorable Plea Bargains (August 17, 2010). Kansas Law Review, Vol. 59, No. 407, 2011. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1660393 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1660393

Colin Miller (Contact Author)

University of South Carolina School of Law ( email )

Main & Greene Streets
Columbia, SC 29208
United States

Paper statistics

Downloads
156
Rank
159,392
Abstract Views
1,580