Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): application insures a defendant receives that to which he is reasonably entitled.” State ex rel. Brewer v. Starcher, 195 W.Va. 185, 192, 465 S.E.2d 185, 192 (1995). Such agreements require "ordinary contract principles to be supplemented with a concern that the bargaining and execution process does not violate the defendant's right to fundamental faimess[.]” State v. Myers, 204 W.Va. 449, 458, 513 S.E.2d 676, 685 (1998). 18 . Similarly, federal courts construe ambiguous plea agreements in favor of defendants and against the government. See, e.g., U.S. v. Isom, 580 F.3d 43; 51 (1st Cir.2009) ("Under the basic contract principles which we apply to the construction of plea agreements, we construe such ambiguities against the government.”); U.S. v. Difeaux, 163 F.3d 725, 728 (2d Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>); U.S. v. Williams, 510 F.3d 416, 422 (3d 
 Holding statements: (A) holding an ambiguous contract will be construed against the party drafting the same (B) holding that both the state and the defendant are bound to the terms of a plea agreement under santobello (C) recognizing ambiguous terms of plea agreement are construed against government (D) holding that parol evidence can be presented when the terms of the agreement are ambiguous (E) holding that ambiguous agreement between attorney and client must be construed in the clients favor
Output (English): holding that both the state and the defendant are bound to the terms of a plea agreement under santobello