Also known as: plea discussion · plea bargaining · plea negotiations
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
Statements exchanged between a defendant and a prosecutor during negotiations aimed at resolving criminal charges through a guilty plea, when those negotiations fail to produce a final plea or the plea is later withdrawn.
Pedro Pacheco met with federal prosecutors after indictment on fraud charges and acknowledged certain transactions during the meeting. No plea agreement was reached. Months later the victim sued Pedro in civil court and sought to introduce his statements from the meeting to prove liability. The court excluded the statements because they arose in unsuccessful plea discussions.
Paige Porter signed a written waiver before plea talks began, agreeing that any statements she made could be used to impeach her at trial if she testified inconsistently. The talks collapsed without a plea. At trial the prosecutor introduced her earlier statements after she gave contrary testimony. The court admitted the statements because the waiver was knowing and voluntary.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Pilar Pena met with the prosecutor before any formal offer and asked what sentencing reduction might be available in exchange for a plea. She made several factual admissions during the conversation. No plea resulted. At trial the government offered her statements to prove the charges. The court excluded them as statements made during plea discussions that did not produce a guilty plea.
Parker Phillips discussed a possible reduced charge with the district attorney in exchange for cooperation. The talks ended without agreement. The prosecutor later sought to use Parker's admissions at trial. The trial court barred the evidence under the state analog to the federal rule protecting plea discussions.
Perry Pratt received a plea offer that required waiver of certain discovery rights. He rejected the offer and proceeded to trial. On appeal he argued the government should have disclosed impeachment material before the plea discussions. The court held that the Constitution does not require such disclosure during unsuccessful plea talks.
Peter Park faced a misdemeanor forgery charge. The prosecutor offered to drop it if he pleaded guilty to a felony and warned that refusal would trigger a habitual-offender indictment. Park rejected the offer. After conviction on the felony the prosecutor obtained the recidivist indictment. The court upheld the prosecutor's conduct as a legitimate exercise of charging discretion during plea discussions.
Statements qualify when made during negotiations with a prosecutor about a possible guilty plea that ultimately fails or produces a withdrawn plea. The protection applies in both civil and criminal cases and extends to preliminary inquiries about available deals.
Supporting sources
A defendant may waive the protection if the waiver is knowing and voluntary. Once waived, statements from unsuccessful plea talks may be used for impeachment or other purposes at trial.
Supporting sources
The federal rule limits protection to discussions with an attorney for the prosecuting authority. Conversations solely with police officers generally fall outside the rule because they lack the formal bargaining character the rule seeks to encourage.
Supporting sources
The Sixth Amendment requires effective assistance during plea discussions because they constitute a critical stage. Counsel's failure to communicate a formal offer can constitute deficient performance if the defendant shows a reasonable probability of acceptance and entry of the plea.
Supporting sources
…whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is violated when a state prosecutor carries out a threat made during plea negotiations to reindict the accused on more serious charges if he does not plead guilty to the offense with which he was originally charged. I The respondent, Paul Lewis Hayes, was indicted by a…