home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
-
-
- NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is
- being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.
- The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been
- prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.
- See United States v. Detroit Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.
-
- SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
-
- Syllabus
-
- UNITED STATES v. MEZZANATTO
- certiorari to the united states court of appeals for
- the ninth circuit
- No. 93-1340. Argued November 2, 1994-Decided January 18, 1995
-
- Respondent was convicted on federal drug charges after being cross-
- examined, over his counsel's objection, about inconsistent statements
- that he had made during an earlier plea discussion. The Ninth
- Circuit reversed, holding that respondent's agreement that any
- statements he made in the plea discussion could be used at trial for
- impeachment purposes was unenforceable under Federal Rule of
- Evidence 410 and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(e)(6)
- (Rules or plea-statement Rules), which exclude from admission into
- evidence against a criminal defendant statements made during plea
- bargaining.
- Held: An agreement to waive the plea-statement Rules' exclusionary
- provisions is valid and enforceable absent some affirmative indica-
- tion that the defendant entered the agreement unknowingly or
- involuntarily. Pp. 3-15.
- (a) Contrary to the Ninth Circuit's conclusion, the Rules' failure
- to include an express waiver-enabling clause does not demonstrate
- Congress' intent to preclude waiver agreements such as respond-
- ent's. Rather, the Rules were enacted against a background pre-
- sumption that legal rights generally, and evidentiary provisions
- specifically, are subject to waiver by voluntary agreement of the
- parties. See, e.g., Ricketts v. Adamson, 483 U. S. 1, 10; Sac and
- Fox Indians of Mississippi in Iowa v. Sac and Fox Indians of
- Mississippi in Oklahoma, 220 U. S. 481, 488-489. Crosby v. United
- States, 506 U. S. ___, ___, and Smith v. United States, 360 U. S. 1,
- 9, distinguished. Respondent bears the responsibility of identifying
- some affirmative basis for concluding that the Rules depart from the
- presumption of waivability. Pp. 3-8.
- (b) The three potential bases offered by respondent for concluding
- that the Rules are not consonant with the presumption of
- waivability-(a) that the Rules establish a ``guarantee [to] fair
- procedure'' that cannot be waived, (b) that waiver is fundamentally
- inconsistent with the Rules' goal of encouraging voluntary settle-
- ment, and (c) that waiver agreements should be forbidden because
- they invite prosecutorial overreaching and abuse-are not persua-
- sive. Instead of the per se rejection of waiver adopted by the Ninth
- Circuit, the appropriate approach is to permit case-by-case inquiries
- into whether waiver agreements are the product of fraud or coer-
- cion. Here, respondent conferred with his lawyer after the prosecu-
- tor proposed waiver as a condition of proceeding with the plea
- discussion, and he has never complained that he entered into the
- waiver agreement at issue unknowingly or involuntarily. Pp. 8-15.
- 998 F. 2d 1452, reversed.
- Thomas, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist,
- C. J., and O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ.,
- joined. Ginsburg, J., filed a concurring statement, in which
- O'Connor and Breyer, JJ., joined. Souter, J., filed a dissenting
- opinion, in which Stevens, J., joined.
-