Opinion ID: 799781
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Plea Bargaining Evidence

Text: In her final claim of error, Alexander argues the district court abused its discretion in failing to admit evidence that she rejected a plea agreement. Prior to trial, Alexander filed a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 104, seeking a ruling that evidence of her rejection of a proposed plea agreement would be admissible at trial. At the pretrial conference, Alexander's counsel acknowledged that the district court was obligated to deny her motion pursuant to United States v. Verdoorn, 528 F.2d 103 (8th Cir.1976). The district court issued a written order denying Alexander's motion. We review a district court's evidentiary rulings ... for abuse of discretion.... Ferguson v. United States, 484 F.3d 1068, 1074 (8th Cir.2007). In Verdoorn, we concluded that government proposals concerning pleas should be excludable in order to encourage [m]eaningful dialogue between the parties. 528 F.2d at 107. Our decisions have continued to rely on this rule. See, e.g., United States v. Greene, 995 F.2d 793, 798 (8th Cir.1993) (finding no abuse of discretion where trial court disallowed rejection of plea agreement to show defendant's consciousness of innocence and stating Verdoorn has settled the matter in our circuit). This Court remains bound by its earlier decision. Owsley v. Luebbers, 281 F.3d 687, 690 (8th Cir.2002) (per curiam). Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the admission of a plea bargain offer at trial.