I N TH E CO UR T OF A PP EALS S T AT E OF AR I Z ONA D I V I S I O N T WO
T HE S T AT E OF AR I Z ONA, P eti ti o n er,

v. H O N
. H E C T O R E
. C A M PO Y , J udge of t he Super i orC our tof the St at e of A r i zona, i n and fort he C ount yof Pi m a, R e sp o n d e n t, and LELAN D FLO REN CI O C RO CK W ELL,

R e a l P a rtyin In ter e st. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 C A
- SA 2009- 0010

DEPA RTM ENT A O P I N I O N

S P E CI AL AC T I ON P RO CE E DI NG Pi m a C ountyC aus e N o. C R
- 20070701 J UR I SDI CTI ON AC CEPTED; RELI EF GRA NTED
B arbar a LaW al l , Pi m a C ount yA t t orney B yJ acob R. L i nes
R o b ert J. H ir sh , P im a C o u n tyP u b li c D ef en d er B yPaul Ski t zki , A m yS. C hapman, and D avi d J
. E uchner T ucs on A t t orney s forPet i t i oner

T ucs on A t t orney s for R eal P artyi n Int eres t

A PR 28 2009 

### F I L E D BY CLE RK

C OU RTOF A PP E A LS DI VIS ION TWO2

H O W A R D , Pr es i di ng J udge. ¶1 I n t hi s s peci al act i on, pet i t i onerSt at e of A r i zona c hal l enges the r es po n dent j udge’ s or dergr ant i ng r eal part y i n i nt er es t L el and Fl or enci o C r ockw el l ’ s m ot i on i n l i m i ne t o pr ecl ude the s t at e fr om i nt r oduci ng i n i t s cas e- i n -ch ief in the under l y i ng cr i m i nal p roceeding st at em ents C rockw el l m ade to l aw enfo rcem ent offi cers on t hree separate
occa s i ons : i n ant i ci pat i on of a pos s i bl e pl ea a gr eement , and on tw o s epar at e occ as i ons pur s uantt o a t rut hful
- cooper at i on cl aus e af t erC r ockw el l and the s t at e had e nt er ed i nt o a pl ea agr eementfr om w hi ch the s t at e s ubs equent l yw i t hdr ew . T he r es pondent j udge l i m i t ed the
s t at e’ s us e of thes e s t at ement s t o i m peac hm entpurpos es , i n the eventC r ockw el l t es t i fi ed. T he s t at e’ s s peci al act i on pet i t i on, fi l ed aft ert he r es pondentj udge deni ed i t s m ot i on t o cl ar i fy
orr econs i derhi s ear l i errul i ng, raises im por t anti s s ues of l aw r egar di ng t he s cope a nd appl i cat i on of R ul e 410, A r i z. R
. E vi d. , and R ul e 17. 4( f ) , A r i z. R
. C r i m . P. Fort he r eas ons
s ta te d b e lo w , w e a c c e p t ju ri s d ic tio n o f th is s p e c ia l a c tio n a n d g ra n t r e lie f
. Speci al A ct i on Juri s di ct i on ¶2 It is a p p ro p ria te th a t w e e x e rc ise o u r d isc re tio n a n d a c c e p t ju risd ictio n o f th is
s p e c ia l a c tio n . S e e S ta te ex re l. T h o m a s v . D itsw o rth , 216 A r i z. 339, ¶ 7, 166 P. 3d 130, 132 (A pp . 20 07 ) ( ac k n ow l edg i ng dis cret i on arynatur e of a pp el l at e cou rt ’s decis i on t o ex erci se
s peci al act i on j ur i s di ct i on)
. Fi r s t , t he st at e has no equal l ypl ai n, s peedy , oradequa t e r emedy b ya p p e a l. See A riz . R . P . S p e c . A c tio n s 1 (a ); s ee al s o Stat e ex rel

. Thom as v. D uncan , 216 A r i z. 260, ¶ 4, 165 P. 3d 238, 240 ( A p p . 2 0 0 7 ); A
. R
. S. § 13- 4032 ( s ett i ng for t h ki nds of3

o rd e rs f ro m w h ich sta te m a ya p p e a l); c f. Sta te ex re l. R o m ley v . M a rtin , 203 A r i z. 46, ¶ 5, 49 P
. 3 d 1 1 4 2 , 1 1 4 3 (A p p . 2 0 0 2 ), a ff’d , 205 A r i z. 279, 69 P. 3d 1000 ( 2003) ( acc ept i ng j ur i s di ct i on of s t at e’ s pet i t i on t o det erm i ne w hether defe ndant m ay be i m peac hed w i t h pr i or fe lon yco n v ict ion s, fin d ing sta te h ad n o p lai n , sp ee d yo r ad eq u ate rem ed yb yap p ea l)
. Second, t he i ssu es r ai s ed i n t hi s s peci al act i on i nvol ve ques t i ons of l aw r el at i ng t o t he i nt erpr et at i on and appl i cat i on of pr ocedur al rul es and ar e “of stat ew ide i m por t ance t o t he j udi ci aryand the l i t i gant s w ho come be for e i ton cr i m i nal m att er s . ” B er ger on ex r el

. P er ez
v . O ’N e il , 2 0 5 A ri z . 6 4 0 , ¶ 1 2 , 7 4 P .3 d 9 5 2 , 9 5 8 (A p p . 2 0 0 3 ). ¶3 C r ockw el l corr ect l yas s ert s thatthe s t at e had a b u rd e n to p ro v id e th is co urtw i th t he p o rt io n s o f th e re c o rd th a t re la te to th e is s u e s it is ra is in g in th is s p e c ia l a c tio n . See A r i z. R
. P. Spec. A ct i ons 7( e) ( pet i t i on “s hal l be su p p o rt ed byan appe ndi x of document s i n t he
r ecor d befor e the tr i al courtt hatar e nec es s aryfor a det erm i nat i on of t he i s s ues r ai s ed byt he pet i t i on”)
. H e ar gues , how ever , t hatthe s t at e di d not s us t ai n t hat bur den and forthi s r eas on al one w e s houl d decl i ne t o acc eptj ur i s di ct i on of the s peci al ac ti o n . B u t the s t at e has pr ovi ded us w i t h a s uffi ci ent r ecor d t o addr es s the di s put ed i s s ues r ai s ed her e. N ei t hert he
s t at e’ s norC r ockw el l ’ s fi l i ngs bel ow or her e ra i s ed any i s s ues conce r ni ng the pr ocee di ngs for w hi ch por t i ons of t he r ecor d ar e m i s s i ng. T he s t at e t her efor e w as noton not i ce thatany addi t i onal por t i ons of the r ecor d w er e nec es s aryor t hat C r ockw el l w oul d at t empt t o expand t he i s s ues . A nd any fac t s r el at i ng t o t he i s s ues actual l y r ai s ed t hatm igh t hav e been
e sta b lish e d b y m iss in g p o rtio n s o f th e re c o rd h a v e e ith e r b e e n c o n c e d e d b yC ro c k w e ll i n h is4

resp o n se to the s tat e’s sp ec ial ac ti o n p eti ti o n o r are a d eq u atelyestab li sh ed b ythe re co rd p ro v id e d
. Se e Pi ne r v . Su pe ri or C ou rt , 192 A r i z. 182, ¶ 10, 962 P. 2d 909, 912 ( 1998) (a c c e p tin g sp e c ial a c tio n ju risd ictio n w h e n f a c ts u n c o n tes ted a n d leg a l is su e c o u ld “ p ro p e rly b e d e c id e d o n th e p re s e n t r e c o rd ” ). ¶4 M or eover , i f C r ockw el l bel i eved thatpor t i ons of t he r ecor d cr i t i cal t o i s s ues he int end ed to r ai se had b een o m i t t ed, he sho uld have provided thi s cou rtw i t h those
m a te ri a ls
. See A riz . R . P . S p e c . A c tio n s 7 (e ) (“ T h e re sp o n s e to th e p e tit io n sh a ll, if
nece s s ary , be suppor t ed by an appendi x of docum ent s i n t he r ecor d befor e the tr i al courtt hat
ar e nec es s aryfora det erm i nat i on of the i s s ues r ai s ed bythe pet i t i on w hi ch ar e notcont ai ned i n t he pet i t i oner ’ s appendi x. ”)
. A ccor di ngl y , w e r ej ectC r ockw el l ’ s r eques tt hatw e dec l i ne ju risd ictio n o n th e g ro u n d th a t th e sta te a lleg e d lyf a iled to p ro v id e th is c o u rt w ith a c o m p lete
re c o rd
. Backg r ound ¶5 C r ockw el l w as char ged byi ndi ctm entw i t h cons pi r acyt o comm i tpos s es s i on and/ ort r ans por t at i on of m ar i j uana for s al e and pos s es s i on of m ar i j uana f ors al e. I n a l ett er to C ro c k w e ll’s atto rn e y d a ted M a rc h 3 0 , 2 0 0 7 , th e D e p u ty P im a C o u n tyA tto rn e ysta ted th a t, i f C r ockw el l w as i nt er es t ed i n obt ai ni ng a bene fi ci al , non- t r i al r es ol ut i on of the cha r ges and
w as w i l l i ng t o as s i s t l aw enfor cement , he w oul d be r equi r ed t o par t i ci pat e i n “a de br i efi ng”
o r “ f re e ta lk .” O n c e th e s ta te h a d th e o p p o rt u n ity to e v a lu a te th e in f o rm a tio n h e p ro v id e d , a d e c i s i o n wou l d b e ma d e whe t h e rt o ma k e Cr o c k wel l a n o f f e r . Th e l e t t e rp r o v i d e d f u r t her5

th a t, su b jec t to sp e c if

ied e x c e p tio n s, “ [ a ]n yth in g [ C ro c k w e ll] sa id d u rin g th e d e b rie f in g w ill not be us ed agai ns t[hi m ] ordi s cl os ed i n anyfas hi on . . . . ” A m ong t he exc ept i ons w er e the fol l ow i ng: 1
. If

y o u r c lien t g iv e s f

a lse , m isle a d in g , o r in c o m p lete i nform at i on dur i ng t he debri efi ng, w hathe s ay s m aybe us ed a g a i n s th i m.

. . . . 3. I f no w or ki ng agr eementi s r eac hed af t ert he debr i efi ng, t he debr i efi ng w i l l notbe us ed by t he S t at e i n i t s cas e i n chi ef, but i f y ourcl i ent t akes t he s t and and t es t i fi es i ncons i s t ent l yt o w hat w a s s a id in th e d e b rie f in g , the d e b rie f

in g w ill b e u s e d to im p ea ch h im an d y o u r cli en t i s su b ject t o p o ssible p erjury prosecuti on . T he sam e t hing app l i es to R ule 32 heari ng s, R O P s, et c. ¶6 A cc o m pani ed byhi s couns el , C r ockw el l m etw i t h det ect i ves H edr i ck and Fi guer oa att he off

i ce of t he Pi m a C ount yA t t orneyon A pr i l 11, 2007, fort he debr i efi ng. Cr o c k we l l ga ve t h e o f

f i c e r s a v e r s i o n o f

th e e v e n t s th a th a d r e s u l t e d i n h i s a r r e s t . I n s u m, C r ockw el l s t at ed thata num ber of i ndi vi dual s , i ncl udi ng hi s codef endant s , had i nt i m i dat ed hi m i nt o al l ow i ng t hem t o br i ng al m os t5, 000 pounds of m ar i j uana t o C r ockw el l ’ s pl ace of empl oym ent , l eave t he drugs t her e overni ght , and tr an sp o r tt hem out the nextm or ni ng. C r ockw el l m ai nt ai ned thatt hes e i ndi vi dual s had been arm ed and thathe had be en coe r ced in to c o o p e ra tin g w ith th e m . ¶7 O n A p r il 1 9 , 2 0 0 7 , C ro c k w e ll an d th e sta te e n ter e d in to a p lea a g re e m e n t, pur s uant t o w hi ch C r ockw el l pl ed gui l t y t o t he conspi r acy char ge. T he agr eementpr ovi ded6

t hatC r ockw el l w oul d t rut hful l ycooper at e w it h the i nves t i gat i on and pr os ecut i on of, i nt er al i a, “anyco- defe ndant s orco -co n s pi r at or s . ” The pl ea a gr eementfur t herpr ovi ded as foll ow s: Shoul d t he St at e i n it s sol e di s cr et i on det erm i ne the

D efe ndanthas been untruthful oruncooper at i ve, t he St at e may i n i t s s ol e di s cr et i on el ectt o decl ar e thi s agre em en t, nul l and v o id th u s p lacing the pa rt ies in th e sam e po sit ion they w ere b efore t his agreem ent w as enter ed or t he Stat e m ay el ect to a d v ise th e C o u rt o f

its c o n c lu sio n f

o r th e C o u rt to c o n sid e r in se n ten c in g th e D e f

e n d a n t. Shoul d t he C our tm ake a fi ndi ng t hatthe D efendant t est i fi ed u ntruthful l yor ot herw i se fal sel yi nc ri m i nated ot hers, t he C our t m ay or der t hi s agr eement t o be s etas i de, pl aci ng the part i es i n t he same pos i t i on t hey w er e befor e t he agr eementw as ent er ed, orm aycons i deri ts f indi ngs i n s ent enci ng t he D efe ndantundert hi s agr eement . N othi ng i n t hi s agr eement s hi el ds t he D efe ndanti n anyw ay[s i c] fr om anycons equenc es of any actof untrut hful nes s i n t he per form ance of [hi s ] obl i gat i ons p u rsu a n t to th is a g re e m e n t. ¶8 C rockw el l m etw i t h H edri ck a s e c o n d tim e on Jul y12 , 20 07 , atdefe nse
couns el ’ s offi ce. H e pr ovi ded addi t i onal i nform at i on r egar di ng t he per s ons w ho had bee n inv o lved in the m ar iju a n a tr an sac ti o n . A p p are n tl y , o n A u g u st 26 , eith er C roc k w ell o r a f a m ilym e m b e r re p o rte d to th e P im a C o u n tyS h e rif f ’s D e p a rtm e n t th a t so m e o n e h a d tried to f o rc e C ro c k w e ll i n to h is c a r a t g u n p o in t. C ro c k w e ll’s a tto rn e yc o n tac ted th e c o u n ty at t or ney ’ s offi ce a nd, on t he fol l ow i ng day , A ugus t27, C r ockw el l m etD et ect i ve H edr i ck and anot her o f

f i c e ra ta f

a s t - f o o d r e s t a u r a n ta n d g a v e h i s th i r d s t a t e me n t . Cr o c k wel l ma de
s t a t e me n t s t h a twe r e i n c o n s i s t e n twi t h wh a t h e h a d s a i d i n h i s p r e v i o u s t wo s t a t e me n t s . He7

es s ent i al l yadmi t t ed thathi s part i ci pat i on i n t he drug deal had notbeen underdur es s , thathe had know n and expect ed t he drugs w oul d be del i ver ed, and t hat he had att empt ed t o arr ange tra n sa c tio n s w ith th e sa m e in d iv id u a ls in th e p a st. ¶9 T he r es pondentj udge s ubs equent l yperm i t t ed the s t at e t o w i t hdr aw fr om t he pl ea agr eement . I n A ugus t 2008, C r ockw el l fi l ed a mot i on i n l i m i ne s eeki ng t o pr ecl ude the
s t at e fr om i nt r oduci ng att r i al i n i t s cas e- i n- chi ef w hat C r ockw el l r efe r r ed t o as hi s “fourfr ee tal k s . ” R ely ing o n the s tat e’s lett er o f M arc h 3 0 , 2 0 0 7 , C roc k w ell asse rt ed the th ir d
exce pt i on t o t he s t at e’ s agr eementnot to u se hi s s t at ement s agai ns thi m appl i ed and, th e re f o re , b a se d o n “ c o n tra c tu a l th e o rie s” a n d R u le 1 7 .4 (f ), A riz
. R
. C rim
. P ., th e sta te c o u ld onl yi nt r oduce hi s s t at ement s i n t he eve ntC r ockw el l t es t i fi ed attr i al i ncons i s t ent l yw i th t he st at em ents he h ad m ade. O n O ct ob er 21, 20 08 , the respon den tj ud ge ruled “t hat the d efen se
m o tio n to p re c lu d e th e d e f e n d a n t’s s tate m e n ts m a d e to law e n f o rc e m e n t o f

f ic e rs in
c o n n e c tio n w ith h is re q u ire d c o o p e ra tio n a n d tru th f u ln e ss a s p a rt o f

h is p lea a g re e m e n t is grant ed. ” T he re sp o n den tadd ed thatt he st at e w ou l d o nlybe p erm i t t ed “to use t hese
s t at ement s as i m peac hm ents houl d t he defe ndant t es t i fy
. ” T he s t at e fi l ed a mot i on t o cl ar i fy
orr econs i dert he rul i ng and, aft era hea r i ng, the r es pondentr eaf fi r m ed hi s O ct oberru li ng. T hi s pet i t i on fors peci al act i on fol l ow ed.

R ul e 41 0, A r i z ona R ul e s of Evi de nc e , and R ul e 17. 4( f

) , A ri zona R ul es of

C ri m i nal P roce dure8

¶10 T he s t at e ar gues t hatnei t her R ul e 410, A r i z. R
. E vi d. , nor R ul e 17. 4( f ) , A r i z. R
. C ri m . P
. , app l i es t o or precl ud es adm i ssi on of C rockw el l ’s second and thir d st at em ents , m ade i n J ul yand A ugus t . I ti m pl i ci t l yconce des , how ever , t hatthos e rul es do appl yt o t he f ir s t “ f re e ta lk ” s ta te m e n t. ¶11 “[W ] e r evi ew de novo ques t i ons i nvol vi ng t he i nt erpr et at i on of courtrul es and

‘ eval uat e pr ocedur al rul es us i ng pr i nci p les o f st atut orycons t ruct i on. ’ ” H ar out uni an v. V al ueopt i ons , I

nc. , 2 1 8 A ri z . 5 4 1 , ¶ 6 , 1 8 9 P .3 d 1 1 1 4 , 1 1 1 7 (A p p . 2 0 0 8 ), qu oti ngFrago so
v . Fe ll , 2 1 0 A r i z . 4 2 7 , ¶ ¶ 7 , 1 3 , 1 1 1 P
. 3 d 1 0 2 7 , 1 0 3 0 , 1 0 3 2 ( A p p . 2 0 0 5 )
. “ C o n s e q u e n t l y, ‘[o ]ur p ri m aryo b

jecti v e is t o d iscern an d g ive e ff ec t t o the inten t o f
. . . o u r sup rem e c o u rt i n pr om ul gat i ng [the rul e]
. ’ ” B er ger on , 2 0 5 A ri z . 6 4 0 , ¶ 1 6 , 7 4 P .3 d a t 9 5 8 , quot i ng V ega
v. Sul l i van , 1 9 9 A riz . 5 0 4 , ¶ 8 , 1 9 P .3 d 6 4 5 , 6 4 8 (A p p . 2 0 0 1 ) (a ltera tio n a n d o m iss io n in B er ger on )
. T he pl ai n l anguage of a rul e i s the “be s t i ndi cat or ” of t he supr eme cour t ’ s i nt ent i n pr om ul gat i ng i t ; cons equent l y , “[i ] f the l anguage i s cl earand unambi guous , w e gi ve ef fec t t o t hat l anguage and do notempl oyotherm ethods of .
. . cons t ruct i on. ” Frago so , 210 A r i z. 427, ¶ 7, 111 P. 3d at 1030. B ut w hen t he l anguage i s “‘ i nconcl us i ve or am bi guous , w e then
cons i derot herfac t or s s uch as [i t s ] cont ext , s ubj ect m at t er , eff ect s , cons equenc es , s pi r i t , and purpos e. ’ ” B er

ger on , 2 0 5 A ri z . 6 4 0 , ¶ 1 6 , 7 4 P .3 d a t 9 5 8 , quot i ng V ega , 199 A r i z. 504, ¶ 8, 19 P. 3d at648 ( al t er at i on i n B er ger on ). ¶12 R ule 410, A ri z. R
. E vid. , provides as fol l ow s:

E xcep tas ot herw i se provi ded byapp l i cable A ctof C on gress , A r i zona s t atut e, ort he A r i zona Rul es of C r i m i nal Pr ocedur e,9 e v id e n c e o f

a p lea o f

g u ilty , late r w ith d ra w n , o r a p lea o f n o lo c o n ten d e re o r n o c o n tes t, o r a n o f f e r to p lea d g u ilty , n o lo cont ender e or n o cont es tt o t he cr i m e cha r ged oranyot her cr i m e, orof s t at ement s m ad e i n connec t i on w i t h anyof the for egoi ng pl eas oroffe r s i s notadmi s s i bl e aga i ns tthe per s on w ho m ade the pl ea oroffe ri n anyci vi l or c r i m i nal act i on or admi ni s t r at i ve pr ocee di ng. R ul e 410 i s cons i s t ent w i t h R ul e 17. 4( f ) , A r i z. R
. C r i m . P. , w hi ch per t ai ns t o di s cl os ur e and
con fi den t i al i t yi n the con t ext of plea nego t i at i on s and ag reem ents . Itprovides as fol l ow s:

W hen a pl ea a gr eementoranyt erm ther eof i s acc ept ed, t he agr eementors uch t erm s hal l become partof the r ecor d. H o w e v e r, if n o a g re e m e n t is re a c h e d , o r if th e a g re e m e n t is r evoked, r ej ect ed by t he court , orw i t hdr aw n ori f the j udgm ent i s l at er vaca t ed or r ever s ed, nei t her t he pl ea di s cus s i on norany r es ul t i ng agr eement , pl ea orj udgm ent , nors t at ement s m ade a t a hea r i ng on t he pl ea, s hal l be admi s s i bl e aga i ns tt he def endant i n anycr i m i nal orci vi l act i on oradmi ni s t r at i ve pr ocee di ng. A ri z . R . C ri m . P . 1 7 .4 (f ). ¶13 W e a g re e w ith th e sta te th a t R u le 1 7 .4 (f ) is c lea r a n d u n a m b ig u o u s. It p lain ly pr ecl udes t he s t at e fr om us i ng s t at ement s a def endantm ade dur i ng “the pl ea di s cus s i on, ” that i s , s t at eme n ts m ade i n a di s cus s i on t hatpr ece des the pl ea a gr eementand anyt hi ng i n the
a g re e m e n t its e lf

, a s w e ll a s s ta te m e n ts m a d e d u ri n g a c h a n g e -o f -p le a h e a ri n g . See Stat e v. V ar gas , 127 A r i z. 59, 61, 618 P. 2d 229, 231 ( 1980) ( hol di ng bot h R ul e 410 and R ul e 17. 4( f) pr ecl ude i m peac hi ng a def endantw i t h “s t at ement s m ade i n the expe ct at i on of a pl ea
a g re e m e n t,” in c lu d in g a “ d o c u m e n t . . . sig n e d d u rin g p lea n e g o tiatio n s” ); s ee al s o Stat e v. F i l lm ore , 187 A r i z. 174, 178 n. 3, 927 P. 2d 1303, 1307 n. 3 ( A pp. 1996) ( fi ndi ng “R ul e 410 pr ot ect s anypl ea of

fer s t hatw oul d al s o be pr ot ect ed byR ul e 17. 4( f ) ”)
. R ul e 17. 4( f ) does10

not , on i t s fac e, appl yt o s t at ement s m ade pur s uantt o a truthful
- cooper at i on cl aus e af t eran agr eementi s r eac hed. ¶14 B u t R u le 4 1 0 ’s lan g u a g e d if f e rs s ig n if ica n tlyf ro m th a t o f

R u le 1 7 .4 (f ). R u le 410 r ender s i nadmi s s i bl e agai ns t a defenda nt i n a cr i m i nal orci vi l pr ocee di ng “evi dence of a pl ea of gui l t y , l at erw i thdr aw n, . . . oran offer t o pl ead gui l t y . . . or of st at ement s m ade in
connec t i on w i th a n yo f th e f o re g o in g p lea s o r o f

f e rs.” (E m p h a sis a d d e d .) T h e p h ra se , “in
c o n n e c tio n w ith ” in

je c ts a m b ig u ity in to R u le 4 1 0
. See U n itedS ta tes v . D a v is , 617 F. 2d 677, 6 8 2
- 8 3 ( D. C. Ci r . 1 9 7 9 ) ( f i n d i n g a mb i g u o u s s a me l a n g u a g e i n f o r me rRu l e 4 1 0, F e d
. R. E v id ., a n d f

o rm e r R u le 1 1 ( e ) ( 6 ), F e d . R . C rim . P ., a n d a p p ly in g c o n stru c tio n p rin c ip les to in terp re t ru les a n d d e ter m in e in ten d e d a p p lica tio n a n d sc o p e ). It is u n c lea r w h e th e r “ in
connec t i on w i t h” i ncl udes s t at ement s m ade by a defe ndant pur s uant t o a truthful
- cooper at i on cl aus e af t erhe has ent er ed i nt o a pl ea a gr eementt hat i s s ubs equent l y r evoked, r ej ect ed byt he
c o u rt, o r w ith d ra w n , o r w h e th e r th e p ro tec tio n a f f o rd e d b y th e ru le is c o n f in e d to sta tem e n ts i n a pl ea a gr eementort hos e made dur i ng di s cus s i ons abouta pos s i bl e pl ea a gr eement , pl ea negot i at i ons , and the pr ocee di ng i n w hi ch a pl ea i s ent er ed. ¶15 F e w A riz o n a c a se s h a v e a d d re ss e d th e sc o p e a n d a p p lica tio n o f R u le 4 1 0 , A riz R
. E vi d. , and none a ddr es s es t he i s s ues r ai s ed her e. I n V ar gas , 127 A r i z. at60- 61, 618 P. 2d at230- 31, forexampl e, ours upr eme cour thel d t hatR ul e 410 pr ohi bi t ed t h e stat e fr om i nt r oduci ng, ei t heri n i t s cas e-in-ch ief orfori m peac hm entpurpos es , a l ett erthe def endant h a d sig n e d “ d u rin g p lea n e g o tiatio n s,” th a t is, “[ d ]u rin g d isc u ss io n s c o n c e rn in g a p o ss ib le11

pl ea of gu i l t y . ” Th e c o u r to b s e r v e d t h a t“ p e r mi t [ t i n g ] t h e u s e o f p l e a d i s c u s s i o n s for i m peac hm entw oul d have a s t r ong chi l l i ng eff ecton pl ea ne got i at i ons . ” V ar gas , 127 A r i z.
a t 6 1 , 6 1 8 P .2 d a t 2 3 1
. ¶16 B uti n Stat e v. St uck , 1 5 4 A ri z . 1 6 , 2 1 , 7 3 9 P
. 2 d 1 3 3 3 , 1 3 3 8 (A p p . 1 9 8 7 ), D i vi s i on O ne of thi s cour thel d t hats t at ement s m ade t o pol i ce of fi cers “in the h ope of
w i nni ng s om e conc es s i ons ” ar e nots t at ement s m ade “i n connec t i on w i t h” a pl ea a gr eement for purpos es of R ul e 4 1 0
. T h e c o u rt i n St uck agr eed w i t h thi s cour t ’ s deci s i on i n Stat e v. Sw eet , 1 4 3 A ri z . 2 8 9 , 2 9 4 , 6 9 3 P .2 d 9 4 4 , 9 4 9 (A p p . 1 9 8 4 ), vacated i n par ton othergr ounds , 1 4 3 A ri z. 266, 693 P. 2d 921 ( 1985) , i n w hi ch w e hel d t hats t at ement s the def endanthad
m a d e to p o lice o f

f ice rs u p o n a rre st a b o u t “a ro b b e ryth a t o c c u rre d a t h is h o u se , o w n e rsh ip of the s ei zed contr aband, and t he pos s i bi l i t yof m aki ng a dea l w i t h t he author i t i es w her eby h e c o u ld w o rk o f

f h is c h a rg e b yh e lp in g th e p o lice m a k e a d ru g b u y ” w e re n o t sta tem e n ts “made i n connec t i on w i t h anypl ea a gr eement s and theydi d notfal l underR ul e 410. ” See als o F i l lm ore , 187 A r i z. at178, 927 P. 2d at1307 ( concl udi ng “R ul e 410 does notpr ot ect sta tem e n ts th a t a s u sp e c t m a k e s in a n u n so licite d o f f e r to a ss ist a u th o rities in o rd e r to a v o id p rose cu ti o n o r i m p ri so n m en t”). ¶17 I n 1977, A r i zona a dopt ed, “w i t h a fe w change s , ” the Feder al R ul es of E vidence, i ncludi ng R ule 410, A ri z. R
. E vid. , w hich, “for al l i ntent s an d pu rposes, . . . [w as]
e s s e n tia lly th e s a m e a s ” R u le 4 1 0 , F e d . R . E v id ., b e f o re it w a s a m e n d e d in 1 9 7 9
. W i l s on v. R i l ey W hi t t l e, I nc. , 1 4 5 A riz . 3 1 7 , 3 2 4 , 7 0 1 P .2 d 5 7 5 , 5 8 2 (A p p . 1 9 8 4 ); s ee al s o 115 A r i z.R ul e 11( e) ( 6) , Fed. R
. C r i m . P. , w as amended i n 1975 t o add the l ang u ag e, “and 1 r el evantt o, ” s ee Ac t o f J u l y 3 1 , 1 9 7 5 , P u b
. L. No
. 9 4
- 6 4 , § 3 ( 1 0 ) , 8 9 S t a t . 3 7 0 , a n d th e s a me la n g u a g e w a s th e n a d d e d to R u le 4 1 0 , s ee A c t o f D e c . 1 2 , 1 9 7 5 , P u b . L . N o . 9 4 -1 4 9 , 8 9 S tat. 80 5. T hu s, t here w ere t i m es w hen t he langu age o f t he tw o rul es di ffere d , b u ttho se d if f e re n c e s w e re slig h t an d in sig n if ica n t. 12 X X X –L X V ( 1977) ( s upr eme cour t ’ s or derpr om ul gat i ng A r i zona Rul es of Evi dence and t ext
o f n e w ly p ro m u lg a te d ru le s ). R u le 4 1 0 , F e d . R . E v id ., a n d R u le 1 1 (e )( 6 ), F e d . R . C ri m . P ., m i r r or ed one a not herunt i l 200 2 , w h en R ul e 11( e) ( 6) w as r enumber ed as R ul e 11( f ) and amended t o be expr es s l y “governed by ” R ul e 410, Fed. R
. E vi d. U nt i l 1979, R ul e 410, Fed. 1 R
. E vi d. , and R ul e 11( e) ( 6) , Fed
. R
. C r i m . P. , pr ovi ded i n r el evantpartthat , w hen a defe ndantent er ed a gui l t ypl ea oroffe r ed t o ent ers uch a pl ea a nd the pl ea w as l at er
w i t hdr aw n, s t at ement s m ad e b y the defendant“i n connec t i on w i t h, and r el evantt o, anyof th e f o re g o in g p lea s o r o f

f e rs” w e re in a d m iss ib le a g a in st th e d e f e n d a n t in a n yc rim in a l o r c iv il p ro c e e d in g . In 1 9 7 9 , R u le 4 1 0 a n d R u le 1 1 (e )(6 ) w e re a m e n d e d . T h e p h ra se , “s tate m e n ts
m ade i n c o n n e c t i o n wi t h , a n d r e l e v a n t t o , ” was r e p l a c e d wi t h , “ i n t h e c o u r s e o f pl ea di s cus s i ons . ” See U

ni t ed Stat es v. Marks , 209 F. 3d 577, 582 ( 6th C i r . 2000)
. R ul e 410( 4)
now pr ohi bi t s t he admi s s i on agai ns ta def endant “i n any ci vi l or cr i m i nal pr ocee di ng . . . [of] any st at em ent m a d e in the co urse of plea discussi on s w i t h an att orneyfort he pr os ecut i ng author i t y w hi ch do not r es ul t i n a pl ea of gui l t y or w hi ch r es ul t i n a pl ea of gu il tyla t er
w ith d ra w n .” (E m p h a s is a d d e d .) ¶18 “W hen i nt erpr et i ng an evi dent i aryrul e thatpr edomi nant l yechoe s i t s fede r al count erpar t , w e oft en l ook t o t he l at t erforgui dance
. ” Stat e v. G r een , 200 A r i z. 496, ¶ 10,13

2 9 P .3 d 2 7 1 , 2 7 3 (2 0 0 1 ); se e a lso He rn a n d ez v . S ta te , 203 A r i z. 196, ¶ 10, 52 P. 3d 765, 767 (2 0 0 2 ) (“ In in terp re tin g A riz o n a ’s e v id e n tiary ru les , w e lo o k to f e d e ra l law w h e n o u r ru le is i dent i cal t o t he corr es pondi ng fede r al rul e . . . . ”)
. A nd, beca us e A r i zona es s ent i al l yadopt ed th e F e d e ra l R u les o f E v id e n c e , “‘in th e a b se n c e o f A riz o n a p re c e d e n t as a g u id e to i nt erpr et at i on of ourrul es , w e w i l l l ook t o the fe der al court s w hi ch have i n terpret ed the Feder al R ul es of Evi dence
. ’ ” Stat e v. H aight -G yuro , 2 1 8 A ri z . 3 5 6 , n .3 , 1 8 6 P .3 d 3 3 , 3 6 n .3 (A p p . 2 0 0 8 ), quot i ng Stat e v. Johns on , 1 3 2 A r i z . 5 , 8 , 6 4 3 P
. 2 d 7 0 8 , 7 1 1 ( A p p . 1 9 8 1 )
. We
w ill e x a m in e f

e d e ra l ca se law in terp re tin g th e v e rsio n s o f R u le 4 1 0 , F e d . R . E v id ., a n d R u le 1 1 (e )(6 ), F e d . R . C rim . P ., th a t ex iste d b e f o re th e 1 9 7 9 a m e n d m e n ts. W e c o n sid e r, as w e ll, t he amendm ent s and t he com m ent ary t her et o, w hi ch re fl ect congr es s i onal i nt entw i t h r es pect to th e m e a n in g a n d a p p lic a tio n o f th e s e ru le s . ¶19 W e fi nd t he di s cus s i on of t hes e t w o rul es i n U n itedS ta tes v . D a v is , 617 F. 2d 6 7 7 (D .C . C ir. 1 9 7 9 ), p a rticu lar lyin stru c tiv e . T h e re , the D .C . C irc u it C o u rt o f A p p e a ls addr es s ed w hetherfede r al R ul es 11( e) ( 6) and 410 pr ohi bi t ed the s t at e fr om i n tr o d u ci ng agai ns ta def

endantgr and j ur y t es t i m ony he had pr ovi ded pur s uant t o a pl ea a gr eementthat h a d b e e n f

o rm a liz e d b u t w a s n e v e r e n te re d a n d f ro m w h ic h h e la te r w ith d re w . D a v is , 617 F. 2d at681- 82. T he courtfound th e w o rds “in connect i on w i t h” i n fede r al R ul es 410 and 1 1 (e)(6), “h ard lyfre e fro m am b igu ity , ” a d d ing , “the re is no clea r l it era l m ea n ing that w e a re bound t o gi ve ef

fec t . ” D a v is , 617 F. 2d at 682. T he courtr egar ded the fa ctt hatt hi s l anguage “ha[ d] been subjectt o a vari et y of i nterpret at i on s, am end m ents , and propo sed am end m ents ”14

a s in d ic a tiv e o f

its a m b ig u ity. Id
. at683 & n. 14 ( compar i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. R ober t

s on , 582 F. 2d 1356 ( 5t h C i r . 1978) , and U ni t ed Stat es v. St i r l i ng , 5 7 1 F .2 d 7 0 8 (2 d C ir. 1 9 7 8 ), w ith U ni t ed Stat es v. Her m an , 5 4 4 F
. 2 d 7 9 1 (5th C ir
. 1 9 7 7 )). E m p loy ing p ri n ciples o f statuto ry
cons t ruct i on, t he court cons i der ed t he rul e’ s “under l y i ng pol i ci es ” and purpos e t o det erm i ne the m ea n ing o f th is l an g u ag e in R u le 11 (e)(6) a n d the in tend ed sco p e o f th e ru le’s
a p p lic a tio n . Id
. at682- 83. ¶20 T he D a v is cour tnot ed that“[t ] he legis l at i ve hi s t oryand the w or di ng of
s ubdi vi s i on ( e) ( 6)
. . . i ndi cat e thati t s m ai n purpose is to p r om ot e the fr ee a nd open
n e g o tia tio n th a t m u s t p re c e d e a n yc o m p ro m is e b e tw e e n th e d e f e n s e a n d th e p ro s e c u tio n .” Id . at 6 8 5 . T h e c o u rt n o ted th e d e f e n d a n t in th a t c a se tes tifie d b e f o re th e g ra n d ju rya f

ter a ll p le a n e g o tia tio n s h a d b e e n c o n c lu d e d
. Id
. T hus , t he cour t r eas oned, the rul e’ s purpos e of

“ e n c o u ra g in g c o m p ro m is e ” w o u ld n o t b e s e rv e d b ye x c lu d in g th is te s tim o n y . Id
. “I ndeed,
s uch a rul e w oul d perm i ta def endant t o br eac h hi s bar gai n w i t h i m puni t y : he coul d r enounce t he agr eementand r etur n t o t he s t atus quo an te w h en ev erhe chos e, even though t he G overnm enthas no par al l el pow ert o r es ci nd the compr om i s e uni l at er al l y . ” Id
. ¶21 T he D a v is cour tfound per s uas i ve U ni t ed Stat es v. St i r l i ng , 571 F. 2d 708 ( 2d C i r . 1978)
. I n es s ent i al l yt he s ame ci r cumst ance s , t he Second Ci r cui tt her e r ej ect ed the defe ndant ’ s ar gum entt hatt he w or ds “i n connec t i on w i t h” i n R ul e 11( e) ( 6) i ncl uded gr and j ur yt es t i m ony h e h ad pr ovi ded i n acc or dance w i t h the pl ea a gr eementfr om w hi ch he
s u b s e q u e n tly w ith d re w . Id
. at730- 31. T he def endanti n St i r l i ng , l i ke the def endanti n D a v is ,I n H er m an , t he Fi fth C i r cui thel d R ul e 11( e) ( 6) pr ot ect ed s t at ement s the def endant 2 h a d m a d e to a p o sta l in sp e c to r, w h o th e d e f e n d a n t er ro n e o u slyb e liev e d h a d th e a u th o rityto conductpl ea ne got i at i ons , “dur i ng t he cour s e of a conver s at i on i n w h ic h he s ought c o n c e s s io n s f

ro m th e g o v e rn m e n t in re tu rn f o r a g u ilty p le a .” 5 4 4 F .2 d a t 7 9 3 , 7 9 8
. 15 a rg u e d h e h a d p ro v id e d th e g ra n d ju ry tes tim o n y “ in c o n n e c tio n w ith ” th e p lea a g re e m e n t,
as cont emplated byR ul e 11( e) ( 6) , and thatt he tr i al cour thad err ed byadmi t t i ng t hat te s tim o n y a g a in s t h im a t tr ia l. Id
. T h e c o u rt a c k n o w led g e d th a t “ th e lan g u a g e o f th e ru le is capa bl e of bei ng r ead expans i vel y , s o as t o r eac h G r and J uryt es t i m onygi ven af t ert he pl ea bar gai n. ” Id
. at 73 1
. B u t, th e c o u rt fo u n d , su ch a c o n stru cti o n w o u ld n o t serve the ru le’s p u rp o se o f

e n c o u ra g in g d e f

e n d a n ts t o n e g o tiate a p lea “ ‘w ith o u t f e a r th a t [ th e ir] sta tem e n ts
w i l l l at erbe us ed aga i ns t[them]. ’ ” I d. , quot i ng Her m an , 544 F. 2d at796. ¶22 C har act er i zi ng Herm an as a de ci s i on gi vi ng t he rul e “i t s m os tgener ous i nt erpr et at i on, ” t he S t i r l i ng co u r ts ur m i s ed thateven the Her m an c o u rt “ w o u ld n o t li k e ly 2 i m m uni ze” t he def

endant ’ s t es t i m onybefor e a gr and j uryaft era pl ea has been e nt er ed but
s u b s e q u e n tly w ith d ra w n . Id
. T he courtcomm ent ed, “The negot i at i ons w er e over . A l l [the defe ndant ] had t o do w as l i ve up t o hi s end of the bar gai n. H i s fai l ur e t o do s o j us t l yexpos ed hi m t o pr os ecut or i al us e of hi s G r and J uryt es t i m ony . ” Id . a t 7 3 1 -3 2
. ¶23 A s w e p rev iou slyn o ted, i n 1 9 7 9 , R u le 4 1 0 , F ed
. R
. E v id., an d R u le 11 (e)(6), F e d . R . C ri m . P ., w e re a m e n d e d , re p la c in g th e p h ra s e “ in c o n n e c tio n w ith , a n d re le v a n t to ,”
w i t h “i n t he cour s e of. ” C l ear l y , t hi s w as i nt ended t o narr ow t he i nt erpr et at i ons of the rul e.In h is s e c o n d n o tice o f su p p lem e n tal au th o rity , f iled a f ter o ra l ar g u m e n t in th is c o u rt, 3 C roc k w ell ask s u s to c o n side r tw o ca ses, w h ich he ref erred to du ri n g the a rgu m en t i n su p p o rt o f h is c o n te n tio n th a t h is s ta te m e n ts w e re in a d m is s ib le p u rs u a n t to R u le 4 1 0 , A ri z . R . E v id .: G o o d e n v . S ta te , 749 S. W
. 2d 657 ( A r k. 1988) , and Stat e v. H ovi nd , 4 3 1 N. W. 2 d 3 6 6 ( I o wa 1988)
. B uti n bot h cas es , al t hough the s t at ement s w er e made aft era pl ea a gr eementw as r eac hed, t h ey w ere atl eas tar guabl ys t i l l par tof pl ea ne got i at i ons , par t i cul ar l yi n H ovi nd , w her e the courtr ecogni zed the def endantcoul d have made the s t at ement s notonl ypur s uant to the ex ist ing p lea a g ree m en t bu t i n co n tem p lat ion o f a n ew o n e. 43 1 N
. W
. 2 d a t 3 7 0 . In an y ev en t, t o t he ext entt hes e ca s es s t and fort he pr opos i t i on t hatpos t - pl ea s t at ement s are 16 T he A dvi s or yC om m i t t ee N ot e t o t he 1979 amendm entt o R ul e 11( e) ( 6) , w hi ch mi r r or ed the
s a m e a m e n d m e n tt o R u l e 4 1 0 , i n c l u d e s th e f o l l o w i n g c o m m e n t a r y: T h e m aj or obj ect i ve of the am end m ent t o rule 11 (e) (6) is to des cr i be more pr eci s el y , cons i s t ent w i t h t he ori gi nal purpos e of t he pr ovi s i on, w hatevi dence r el at i ng t o pl eas orpl ea di s cus s i on is in adm i ssi ble. T he p res ent l ang uag e i s suscept i ble t o in terp re tatio n w h ich w o u ld m a k e it ap p lica b le to a w id e v a rie ty of s t at ement s m ade unde rvar i ous cir cumst ance s othert han w ith in th e c o n tex t o f

th o se p lea d isc u ss io n s a u th o riz e d b yru le 11( e) and i nt ended t o be pr ot ect ed b y s ubdi vi s i on ( e) ( 6) of the rul e. T he not e goes on t o poi ntout t he purpos e behi nd R ul e 11( e) ( 6) and R ul e 401, as art i cul at ed i n i n i t i a l A d v i s o r y C o m m i t t e e N o t e s a n d r e f l e c t e d i n c o n g r e s s i o n a l c o m m e n t a r y: n a m e l y, to p ro m o te th e re so lu tio n o f c rim in a l ca se s b yp lea a g re e m e n ts a n d e n c o u ra g e d e f e n d a n ts to be ca n d i d d u r i n g p l e a n e g o t i a t i o n s . Th e c o mme n t a r y o b s e r v e d t h a t a c o n s e q u e n c e of t he
rul es ’ ambi gui t yw as vary i ng i nt erpr et at i ons byfede r al court s and thats om e c o u rt s , i ncl udi ng t he Fi fth C i r cui ti n Her m an and t he Si xth C i r cui ti n U ni t ed Stat es v. B r ooks , 536 F. 2d 1137 (6 t h C i r . 1 9 7 6 ) , h a d in te rp re te d th e ru le s m o re b ro a d ly th a n h a d b e e n in te n d e d
. See a l so Marks , 209 F. 3d at582. 3c o v e re d b yru les sim ilar to A riz o n a ’s, w e re jec t th e m a s c o n stru in g th e sim ilar te rm s o f th e ir r e s p e c t i v e ru l e s t o o b r o a d l y. 17 ¶24 B ase d o n thes e f ed era l auth o ri ti es a n d the in tent ref lected in the rules’ h ist o ry and comm ent ary , w e cons t rue our R ul e 410 narr ow l y , cons i s t ent w i t h i t s or i gi nal i nt ent . O ur
su p re m e c o u rt h a s n o t ch a n g e d th e w o rd in g o f A riz o n a R u le 4 1 0 , as C ro c k w e ll p o in ts o u t, but t her e ar e no cas es i n A r i zona c ons t rui ng t he rul e as br oadl yas s om e of the pr i orfede r al deci s i ons , w hi ch had pr om pt ed the change i n t he fede r al rul e t o r ei nfor ce the rul e’ s or i gi nal i nt ent . L i ke i t s fede r al count erpart , A r i zona’ s R ul e 410 w as i nt ended t o encour age c r i m i nal defe ndant s t o ent eri nt o pl ea agr eement s by as s ur i ng t hem s t at ement s m ade w hi l e negot i at i ng an agr eementand i n ent er i ng t he pl ea a gr eementi t s el f ca nnotbe us ed aga i ns tthe def endant i n t he event no agr eement i s r eac hed or t he agr eement i s r ej ect ed bythe courtorw i t hdr aw n. T h e A riz o n a ru le, lik e its f e d e ra l co u n terp a rt, i s d e s ig n e d to p ro m o te c a n d o r d u rin g th is p ro c e s s . See Vargas , 127 A r i z. at61, 618 P. 2d at231 ( “To perm i t t he us e of pl ea di s cus s i ons fori m peac hm entw oul d have a s t r ong chi l l i ng eff ecton pl ea ne got i at i ons . ”). It w as not i nt ended t o pr ovi de def endant s w i t h a s hi el d fr om t he cons equence s of pr ovi di ng l aw enfor cementoffi ci al s w i t h unt rut hful i nform ati o n i n or dert o obt ai n a fa vor abl e pl ea agr eement . Pr ot ect i ng s uch s t at ement s does nots erve the purpos e of the rule: r athert han p ro m o tin g c a n d o r, itw o u ld re w a rd d e c e itfu l co n d u c t. ¶25 T he s t at e does notdi s put e thatthe s t at ement s C r ockw el l m ade dur i ng t he debr i efi ng or“fr ee t al k” on A pr i l 11, 2007, fal l w i t hi n t he purvi ew of R ul e 410’ s pr ot ect i on.C r oc k wel l a s s e r t e d f o rt h e f i r s tt i me i n h i s Apr i l 2 , 2 0 0 9 n o t i c e o f s u p p l ement al 4 author i t yt hatt he r es pondentj udge never found C r ockw el l had been untruthful and ar gued t he r es pondentther efor e di d notabus e hi s di s cr et i on byfin d ing unper s uas i ve the fe der al c a se s th e sta te h a d re lied o n b e lo w . C ro c k w e ll re p e a ted th a t as se rtio n a t o ra l ar g u m e n t in th is cour t , fur t herar gui ng t hatbeca us e the s t at e has n o t pr ovi ded us w i t h t r ans cr i pt s of the hear i ng dur i ng w hi ch t he r es pondentperm i t t ed the s t at e t o w i t hdr aw fr om t he pl ea a gr eement ort he i ni ti al hear i ng on C r ockw el l ’ s m ot i on i n l i m i ne, w e ca nnotas s um e hi s l ack of t rut hful nes s orfai l ur e t o cooper at e w ere the r eas ons t he s t at e w i t hdr ew . A s s ert i ng new a rg u m e n ts in a n o tice o f su p p lem e n tal a u th o rity is a m isu se o f th e ru le p e rm itt in g a p a rtyto f ile s u c h a n o tic e . See A r i z. R
. C i v. A pp. P. 17; A r i z. R
. P. Spec. A ct i ons 7( i ) ( A r i zona Rul es of C i vi l A ppel l at e proc edur e appl yt o s peci al act i ons w hen noti ncons i s t entw i t h the s peci al ac ti o n rules); s ee al

s o R ow e I

nt ’ l , I nc. v. Ari

z . D ep’ t of R eve nue , 165 A r i z. 122, 128, 796 P. 2d 924, 930 ( A pp. 1990) ( r efus i ng ar gum ent s r ai s ed forfi r s tt i m e i n s uppl ement al ci t at i on o f leg a l au th o rity ); Stat e v. R ossi , 171 A r i z. 276, 281, 830 P. 2d 797, 802 ( 1992) ( ar gum ent w ai ved w hen ra i s ed for fi r s t t i m e i n s uppl ement al ci t at i on of l egal author i t ys ubm i t t ed af t er br i efi ng and bef

or e or al ar gum ent )
. A nd, “i s s ues and ar gum ent s r ai s ed forthe fi r s tt i m e at or al ar gum ent. . . ar e unt i m el yand dee m ed w ai ved. ” Mitch e ll v. G a m b le , 207 A r i z. 364, ¶ 16, 86 P. 3 d 9 4 4 , 9 4 9
- 5 0 ( App
. 2 0 0 4 )
. M o r e o v e r , i n h i s r e s p o n s e t o th e s t a t e ’ s s peci al act i on pet i t i on, C r ockw el l di d not di s put e hi s unt ruthful nes s w as the r eas on he l os tthe pl ea; i ndeed, he concede d t hi s fac t w hen he s t at ed he “ha[ d] al r eadypai d the pena l t yforhi s act i ons dur i ng t he fr ee t al k pr oces s
— he l os t t he pr offe r ed pl ea agr eement , ” and “[a ] nyexpec t at i ons th a t h e c o u ld re c e iv e ” a b e n e f icia l “‘ n o n -tria l d isp o sitio n ,’ as c o n tem p late d in th e f re e talk agr eement , have be en for s aken. ” C ons equent l y , as not ed ea r l i erthe mi s s i ng por t i ons of the re c o rd a re irre lev a n t. C ro c k w e ll also c o n ten d e d f o r th e f irst tim e a t o ra l ar g u m e n t th a t h is A u g u st s tate m e n ts w e re n o t m a ter ially in c o n sis ten t w ith th e sta tem e n ts he h a d m a d e in A p ril 18 T h e ya re a lso p ro tec ted b yR u le 1 7 .4 (f ), A riz . R . C rim . P . B u t th e sta tem e n ts C ro c k w e ll
m ade pur s uantt o t he t rut hful
- cooper at i on cl aus e on J ul y12 and A ugus t27, m onths aft erhe had ent er ed i nto the p le a agr eement , w er e notm ade “ i n connec t i on w i t h .
. . the for egoi ng p lea[ ] or o ff

ers.” A ri z. R
. E v id. 41 0
. A n d theyare p lai n lyn o t cov e re d b yR u le 17
. 4 (f ). T h u s, to th e e x ten t th e re sp o n d e n t ju d g e b a se d h is d e c isio n to g ra n t C ro c k w e ll’s m o tio n in l i m i ne on hi s concl us i on t hatt he J ul yand A ugus ts t at ement s w er e pr ot ect ed byR ul e 410, he
err ed. 4and J ul yand t hat t he r es pondentj udge neve rfound theyw er e. T hi s as s ert i on, t oo, i s w ai ved

b yh is f a ilu re to ra ise it i n h is re sp o n se a n d b yth e p re v io u slyq u o ted c o n c e ss io n in h is re s p o n s e . Id
. A nd, t he s t at ement s themsel ves , w hi ch w e do have befor e us , es t abl i s h the y w e re m a ter ially in c o n sis ten t. In C ro c k w e ll’s th ird sta tem e n t, a f ter d e tec tiv e s r e p e a ted ly acc us ed hi m of notbei ng t rut hful , C r ockw el l i m pl i ct l yagr eed a nd pr ovi ded new i nform at i on t h a tc o n f l i c t e d wi t h wh a th e h a d p r e v i o u s l yt o l d th e m. T he r es pondent ’ s comm ent s dur i ng the h ea ri n g on the mot i on forr econs i der at i on 5 s ugges the gr ant ed the s t at e’ s r eques tfora hea r i ng and al s o m ay have bas ed hi s rul i ngs on p rin c ip les o f

“ f u n d a m e n tal f

a irn e ss .” B u t th e su p re m e c o u rt ru les g o v e rn th e a d m iss ib ili ty o f e v id e n c e . See ge ner al l y A ri z . R . E v id . 1 0 1 , 1 0 2
.

19 M ar c h 30 Let t e r and t he Pl e a Agre e m e nt ¶26 T he s t at e nextar gues thatC r ockw el l w ai ved anypr ot ect i on pr ovi ded byt he
rul es i n t he M ar ch 30, 2007 fr ee- t al k l ett erand t he pl ea a gr eement . B as ed on the l anguage t he r es pondentj udge us ed i n hi s O ct ober21, 2008 m i nut e entr ygr ant i ng C r ockw el l ’ s m ot i on i n l i m i ne and hi s J anuary 5, 2009 m i nut e entr y deny i ng t he s t at e’ s m ot i on forr econs i der at i on, i tap p ea rs t he r es pondentbas ed hi s rul i ngs on t he M ar ch 30 l et t er . A nd, the r es pondent 5
se e m s to hav e fou nd t he thi rd excep t i on setforth in the lett er appl i ed to the st a tem e n ts C r ockw el l had made on al l t hr ee oc cas i ons . W e t her efor e m us t det erm i ne w hether , i n t he M ar ch 30 l ett er , C r ockw el l w ai ved any pr ot ect i on t he rul es ext ended t o t he A pr i l s t at ement and w hethert hat l et t er pr ov i ded anyprot ect i on for the Julyand A ug ustst at em ents . ¶27 T he M ar ch 30 l ett er set fo rth s peci fi c t erm s and condi t i ons r el at i ng t o the
s t at e’ s cons i der at i on of a “ non- t r i al di s pos i t i on” of the cha r ges agai ns tC r ockw el l
. L i ke pl ea agr eement s , “coope r at i on . . . agr eement s . . . ar e cont r actual i n natur e. ” S ta te v . P la tt , 162 A riz . 4 1 4 , 4 1 4 , 7 8 3 P .2 d 1 2 0 6 , 1 2 0 6 (A p p . 1 9 8 9 ); see a l so Sa ntobel l o v. N

ew Y ork , 40 4 U. S.In h is A p ri l 2 n o ti ce o f su p p lem en tal au tho ri tyan d d u ri n g o ral arg u m en t in th is co u rt 6 C r ockw el l ar gued fort he fi r s tt i m e that , t o t he ext entt he M ar ch 2007 l et t erort he pl ea agr eementar e ambi guous , t hey s houl d be cons t rued i n hi s favor
. A gai n, as pr evi ous l ynot ed, th is is a n im p ro p e r u s e o f a n o tic e o f

s u p p le m e n ta l a u th o ri ty, s ee A r i z. R
. C i v. A pp. P. 17; R o w e In t’ l , 165 A r i z. at128, 796 P. 2d at930, and w e do notaddr es s ar gum ent s r ai s ed fort he f ir s t tim e a t o ra l a rg u m e n t, Mitch e ll , 2 0 7 A riz . 3 6 4 , ¶ 1 6 , 8 6 P .3 d a t 9 4 9 -5 0 . M o re o v e r, in hi s r es pons e to the pet i t i on, C r ockw el l char act er i zed the pr ovi s i ons of the l et t eras “ u n a m b ig u o u s.” T o th e e x ten t h e su g g e ste d e ith e r in th e n o tice o f su p p lem e n tal a u th o rity orator al ar gum entt hatt he pl ea w as i nval i d beca us e he mayhave mi s under s t ood i torw as pr om i s ed s om ethi ng ot her t han w hati s i ncl uded i n the expr es s t erm s of the agr eement , agai n, t hes e ar gum ent s w er e i m pr oper l yand unt i m el yr ai s ed, and w e fa il t o s ee thei rr el evanc e, g iv e n th a t a p le a a g re e m e n t n o lo n g e r e x is ts . 20 2 5 7 , 2 6 2 (1 9 7 1 ); U

ni t ed Stat es v. H

ar dw i ck , 5 4 4 F .3 d 5 6 5 , 5 7 0 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ), cer t
. deni ed , 129 S. C t . 1386 ( 2009) ( “A pr offe ragr eementi s a contr act and i t s t erm s m us t be r ead t o gi ve
e f f e c t to th e p a rties ’ in ten t”) ; Me jia v . Irw in , 195 A r i z. 270, ¶ 12, 987 P. 2d 756, 758 ( A pp. 1 9 9 9 ) (plea a g ree m en t “i s li k e a co n tr ac t . . . a n d is s u b ject t o co n tr ac t i n terpretati o n ”). A ppl y i ng pr i nci pl es of contr actl aw , w e “‘ m us t gi ve ef fec tt o t he contr actas i ti s w r i t t en, and t he t erm s orpr ovi s i ons of the contr act , w her e cl ear and unambi guous , ar e concl us i ve. ’ ” S ta te
v. Tayl or , 1 5 8 A ri z . 5 6 1 , 5 6 4 , 7 6 4 P .2 d 4 6 , 4 9 (A p p . 1 9 8 8 ), quot i ng Shat t uck v

. P r ecis i onToyota, I nc. , 1 1 5 A ri z. 58 6 , 5 8 8 , 5 6 6 P
. 2 d 1 3 3 2 , 1 3 3 4 (19 7 7 ). 6 ¶28 T h e lett er m ad e c lear th a t a c o n d it ion p rec ed en t t o an yn eg o ti ati o n s fo r a b e n e f ic ia l, no n -tria l re so lu tio n o f th e c h a rg e s w a s C ro c k w e ll’s w ill in g n e ss to c o o p e ra te tru th f u llyw ith a n d a ss ist law e n f o rc e m e n t. T h e lette r m a d e e q u a lly c lea r th a t th e sta te w o u ld
n o t o f f e r C ro c k w e ll a p lea u n til h e c o u ld b e q u e stio n e d d u rin g a “ d e b rie f in g ” a n d th e sta te h a d th e o p p o rtu n ityto e v a lu a te th e in f o rm a tio n it o b tain e d
. T h e lette r e n c o u ra g e d C ro c k w e ll21

t o be ca ndi d byas s ur i ng hi m no s t at ement s w oul d be us ed aga i ns thi m , s ubj ectt o fi ve
e x c e p tio n s. T h e f

irst e x c e p ti o n a p p lies h e re . It p e rm its th e sta te to u se a n ysta tem e n ts C r ockw el l m ad e dur i ng t he ant i ci pat ed debr i efi ng i f he ga ve “f al s e, m i s l eadi ng, or i ncompl et e i nform at i on. ” The exce pt i on cont ai n s n o li m it at i on on t he s t at e’ s us e of the st a te m e n ts. T h u s, th e lette r a llo w s th e sta te to u se f o r a n yp u rp o se th e A p ril 1 1 sta tem e n t, wh i c h wa s o t h e r wi s e p r o t e c t e d un de r Rul e 4 1 0 , Ar i z . R. Ev i d
. , a n d Ru l e 1 7
. 4 ( f ) , Ar i z . R. C ri m . P
. ¶29 T he thi r d exce pt i on i n t he l et t er , on w hi ch C r ockw el l r el i es , i s t he onl yone that perm i t s t he s t at e t o us e hi s s t at ement s fori m peac hm entpurpos es onl y . B utthatexce pt i on does notappl yher e. Fi r s t , t he ent i r e ag ree m en t i s pr emi s ed on C r ockw el l ’ s trut hful cooper at i on; beca us e C r ockw el l di d notgi ve t ruthful s t at ement s , the fi r s texce pt i on governs and w e nee d notl ook t o anyof the otherexce pt i ons . A nd t he thi r d exce pt i on onl yappl i es i f the s t at e and Croc kw el l had bee n unabl e t o r eac h a “w or ki ng agr ee m ent. . . aft erthe debr i efi ng. ” U ndert hose circu m s t ance s , the s t at e w oul d have be en perm i t t ed t o us e the
s t a t e m e n t s f

o ri m p e a c h m e n tp u rp o s e s i f C r o c k w e l l w e r e t o “ t a k e [ ] t h e s t a n d a n d t e s t i f[ y] i ncons i s t ent l yt o w hatw as s ai d i n the debr iefing
. ” B u t the part i es di d r eac h an agr eement

— al bei tone thatC rockw el l br eac hed bypr ovi di ng l aw enfor cementuntrut hful inf o rm ati o n . E v en tho u g h the ag ree m en t w as de clared “n u ll an d v o id” a n d the p arti es w ere
r etur ned t o t hei ror i gi nal pos i t i on beca us e of C r ockw el l ’ s br eac h, t he par t i es ’ i nt ent w as t hat22

t hat pr ovi s i on not appl y i f an agr eement w er e r eac hed. T her efor e, t he thi r d exce pt i on does
n o ta p p l y. ¶30 H avi ng det erm i ned thatC r ockw el l and the s t at e i nt ended thatt he M ar ch 30 lette r w a iv e th e p ro tec tio n th e ru les a f f o rd e d th e A p ril sta tem e n t, w e m u st n o w d e ter m in e if t hatw ai veri s perm i s s i bl e. I n U n itedS ta tes v . Mezz a n a tto , 513 U
. S. 196, 200- 01 ( 1995) , t he Supr eme C our t hel d t hat a defenda nt can w ai ve t he prot ect i ons aff or ded byR ul e 410, Fed. R
. E vi d. , and R ul e 11. 4( e) ( 6) , Fed. R
. C r i m . P. , r ej ect i ng t he N i nth C i r cui t ’ s appr oach, w hi ch “deem [ed] w ai ver [o f th e se ri gh t s] presum pti velyun avail able absentsom e sortof ex press enabl i ng cl aus e, ” and e ngagi ng i ns t ead i n the “oppos i t e pr es um pt i on. ” Li ke C r ockw el l , t he defe ndanti n Mezz a n a tto ag ree d to a “ fre e talk” as a co n d it ion to the g o v ern m en t’ s
c o n s id e ra tio n o f w h e th e r to o f f e r h im a p le a a g re e m e n t. Id
. at198. T he def endantagr eed t hat , i f no agr eementw er e r eac hed, the g o v ern m entcoul d us e the s t at ement s he had made d u ri n g th e “ f

re e ta lk ” f

o r i m p e a c h m e n t p u rp o s e s . Id
. N o a g re e m e n t w a s e v e r r e a c h e d
. Id
. at198- 99. ¶31 R e v e rsin g th e N in th C irc u it, w h ich h a d f o u n d th e rig h ts u n d e r th e ru le c o u ld notbe w ai ved, t he Supr eme C our tr eas oned that , “abs ents om e af fi r m at i ve i ndi cat i on of C ongr es s ’ i nt entt o pr ecl ude w ai ver , w e have pr es um ed thats t atut orypr ovi s i ons ar e s ubj ect t o w ai verbyvol unt aryagr eementof the part i es . ” Id
. a t 2 0 1 , 2 1 1
. Th e Cou r t a d d ed, “The p re s u m p tio n o f

w a iv a b ility h as f

o u n dsp ec if

ic a p p lic a tio n in th e c o n te x t o f e v id e n tia ry ru le s .” Id
. at202. T he C our tr ecogni zed that23 evi dent i arys t i pul at i ons ar e a va l uabl e and int egr al par tof e v e ry d a ytrial p ra c tice . P rio r to trial, p a rtie s o f te n a g re e in w r i t i ng t o t he admi s s i on of otherw i s e obj ect i onabl e evi dence , ei t her i n excha nge for s t i pul at i ons fr om oppos i ng couns el orfor o th e r stra teg ic p u rp o se s. B o th th e F e d e r a l R u les o f C iv il Pr ocedur e and the F eder al R ul es of C r i m i nal Pr ocedur e appe ar to co n tem p lat e tha t th e p arti es w il l enter into e v iden ti ary agr eement s dur i ng a pr etr i al confe r ence . Id
. at203. ¶32 T he Supr eme C our ti n Mezz a n a tto r ej ect ed the def en d ant ’ s s ugges t i on that
s t i pul at i ons i m pl i cat i ng pl ea- s t at ementrul es are s om ehow di s t i ngui s habl e, fi ndi ng t he d ist inction to be on e w ith o u t a diff ere n ce . Id
. a t 2 0 3 , n .3 . T h u s , th e C o u rt c o n c lu d e d , a defe ndantcan vol unt ar i l yw ai ve the pr ot ect i ons of fede r al R ul es 410 and 11( e) ( 6) , and the d e f e n d a n t h a d d o n e s o in th a t c a s e . Id
. at210- 11. ¶33 I n U

ni t ed Stat es v. H

ar dw i ck , 5 4 4 F
. 3 d 5 6 5 , 5 7 0 (3d C ir. 2 0 0 8 ), the T h ir d Ci r c u i t Cou r t o f App e a l s r e c e n t l y n o t e d t hat i n Me zz a n a tto th e S u p re m e C o u rt h a d “ o n ly
cons i der ed t he enfor ceabi l i t y of pr offe rw ai ver s fori m peac hm entpurpos es , and fi ve j us t i ces
e x p re ss e d d o u b t as to w h e th e r a w a iv e r c o u ld b e u se d to a d m it th e d e f e n d a n t’s s tate m e n t in th e G o v e rn m e n t’s c a se -in -c h ief.” B u t, a s th e c o u rt a lso p o in ted o u t, fe d e ra l ap p e llate c o u rts had s i nce a ppl i ed the maj or i t y ’ s deci s i on i n Mezz a n a tto t o w ai veragr eement s t hatperm i tt he go vernm ent t o in tro du ce a de fend ant’ s pl ea-r el at ed st at em ents for m ore than j ust im p e a c h m e n t, in c lu d in g in th e g o v e rn m e n t’ s c a s e -i n -c h ie f , s ee U ni t ed Stat es v. B ur ch , 156 F .3 d 1 3 1 5 , 1 3 2 1 -2 2 (D .C . C ir . 1 9 9 8 ), a n d in th e g o v e rn m e n t’ s re b u tta l, s ee U ni t ed Stat es v. R ebbe , 3 1 4 F .3 d 4 0 2 , 4 0 7 (9 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). H ar dw i ck , 5 4 4 F .3 d a t 5 7 0 ; s ee al s o U ni t ed Stat es24

v. V el ez , 3 5 4 F .3 d 1 9 0 , 1 9 6 (2 d C ir. 2 0 0 4 ); U ni t ed Stat es v. Kr i l i ch , 159 F. 3d 1020, 1025- 26 (7 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ). ¶34 L i ke the courti n H ar dw i ck , “[w ]e are persuaded by t he r easoning o f t hese
cour t s . . . . ” 544 F. 3d at 5 7 0
. W e t her efor e fi nd C r ockw el l ’ s w ai verof the pr ot ect i on aff or ded underR ul e 410, A r i z. R
. E vi d. , and R ul e 17. 4( f ) , A r i z. R
. C r i m . P. , perm i t t i ng the
s t at e t o i nt r oduce hi s A pr i l 11 s t at ement s i n i t s cas e- i n- chi ef, i s enfor cea bl e. T he r es pondent j udge ther efor e err ed byl i m i t i ng t he stat e’ s us e of thats t at ementt o i m peac hm entof C ro c k w e ll, “ s h o u ld [ h e ] t e s tif y .” ¶35 We n o w tu r n t o t h e s t a t e me n t s Cr o c k we l l ma d e i n J u l ya n d Au g u s t . As we pr evi ous l ynot ed, i n hi s r es pons e t o t he s t at e’ s s peci al act i on pet i t i on, C r ockw el l addr es s ed th e th re e sta tem e n ts sim u ltan e o u sly , a s if the M a rc h 3 0 lette r a n d th e ru les a p p lied e q u a lly t o t hem al l
. T he re s pondent j udge appe ar s t o have done t he s ame. B ut t he M ar ch 30 l ett er
o n ly ap p li ed to the A p ri l 11 d eb ri ef ing
. It s peci fi ed t hat t he r equi r ed debr i efi ng had t o t ake pl a c e “ n o l a t e rt h a n Apr i l 1 3 , 2 0 0 7 , ” b e f o r e t h e s t a t e wou l d o f f e rCr o c k wel l a p l ea ag ree m en t. T h u s, the lett er c a n n o t s erv e a s a ju sti fica ti o n fo r th e re sp o n d en t j u d g e’s restri cti n g the s tat e’s u se o f the su b seq u en t statem en ts to im p ea ch m en t p u rpo ses. M o reo v er,
a s w e h a v e p re v io u slysta ted , the lette r’s f irst e x c e p tio n f

o r f a lse in f o rm a tio n w o u ld a p p ly i n anyevent . A nd, as w e conc l uded abov e, t he appl i cabl e rul es of evi dence and cr i m i nal p ro c e d u re d o n o t p ro te c t th e J u ly an d A u g u s t s ta te m e n ts .25

¶36 T he agr eementt hatgoverned the J ul yand A ugus ts t at ement s w as t he pl ea
a g re e m e n t. A m o n g its sp e c ial te rm s w a s C ro c k w e ll ’ s a g re e m e n t to “ c o o p e ra te w ith author i t i es i n i nvesti g ati n g and pr os ecut i ng t hos e cr i m i nal s and or gani zat i ons of w hi ch he i s aw ar e[, ] i ncl udi ng t es t i fy i ng ful l y , t ruthful l y , and compl et el yi n t he pr os ecut i on of anycodefe ndant s orco- cons pi r at or s . ” T he pl ea agr eement di d not pr ot ect C r ockw el l w i t h r es pect to a n yu n tru th f

u l sta tem e n ts. In d e e d , the p lea a g re e m e n t p ro v id e d th a t “[ s]h o u ld th e S tate in its so le d isc re tio n d e ter m in e th e D e f e n d a n t h a s b e e n u n tru th f u l . . . th e S tate m a y in its so le d i s c r e t i o n e l e c tt o d e c l a r e t h i s a g r e e me n t [ ] n u l l a n d v o i d t h u s p l a c i n g t h e p a r t i e s i n th e s a me p o sitio n th e yw e re b e f

o re th is a g re e m e n t w a s e n ter e d
. . . . ” It f u rth e r sta ted : “N o th in g in t hi s agr eements hi el ds [C r ockw el l ] i n any w ay [sic] fr om anycons equenc e of a nyactof
u n tru th f u ln e ss in th e p e rf

o rm a n c e o f

[ h is] o b lig a tio n s p u rsu a n t to th is a g re e m e n t.” T h e sta te
w i t hdr ew fr om t he pl ea a gr eementaf ter i tl earned i n A ugus t2007 t hatC r ockw el l had not b e e n tru th f

u l in A p ril o r Ju ly . T h a t w a s its rig h t. T h u s, th e re sp o n d e n t ju d g e a b u se d h is d isc re tio n b yg ra n tin g C ro c k w e ll’s m o tio n in lim in e , p re v e n tin g th e sta te f ro m u sin g th e Ju ly
a n d A u g u st s tate m e n ts i n its c a se -in -c h ief a n d o n lya llo w in g th e ir u se to im p e a c h C ro c k w e ll
s h o u ld h e te s tif

y .

C oncl usi on26

¶37 F o r th e re a so n s s tate d h e re in , w e c o n c lu d e th e r e s p o n d e n t ju d g e a b u se d h is d isc re tio n b yg r a n ti n g C ro c k w e ll’s m o tio n in lim in e to p re c lu d e th e sta te f ro m u sin g in its
ca se-in-c h ief statem en ts he h ad m ad e to law en fo rce m en t o ff icers o n A p ri l 1 1 , 2 0 0 7 , b ef o re he ent er ed i nt o a pl ea agr eement , and st at ement s he m ade on Jul y12 and A ugus t27, 2007, aft erh e ent er ed i nt o an agr eementfr om w hi ch the s t at e s ubs equent l yw i t hdr ew aft er C r ockw ell br eac hed the agr eement . T he r es pondenterr ed as a mat t erof l aw and ther eby
a b u s e d h is d is c re tio n . See A riz . R . P . S p e c . A c tio n s 3 (c ); see al so S ta te v . Ke lly , 210 A r i z. 460, ¶ 17, 112 P. 3d 682, 687 ( A pp. 2005) ( “err orof l aw m aycons t i tut e an a bus e of di s cr et i on”)
. W e t her efor e gr ant t he s t at e s peci al act i on r el i ef and vaca t e t h e re sp o n d ent ju d g e ’s o rd e rs o f

O c to b e r 2 1 , 2 0 0 8 , a n d J a n u a ry 5 , 2 0 0 9
.

____________________________________ J O SE PH W
. H O W A R D , Pr es i di ng J udge

CO NC UR RI NG:

____________________________________ J O H N PE L A N D E R , C hi ef J udge

____________________________________ PH I L I P G
. E SPIN O SA , J udge