Opinion ID: 359553
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Advice Concerning the Nature of the Charge.

Text: 4 The Supreme Court has stated that because a plea of guilty is itself a conviction, it shall not be accepted unless made voluntarily after proper advice and with full understanding of the consequences. Kercheval v. United States, 274 U.S. 220, 47 S.Ct. 582, 71 L.Ed. 1009 (1927). Rule 11 has always required compliance with this mandate and now section (c), amended in 1975, sets forth with specificity not only the method to be used in giving this advice: the court must address the defendant personally in open court and inform him of, and determine that he understands . . .; but also the particular advice which must be given, subsection (1) specifying that the court must inform and determine that the defendant understands the nature of the charges to which the plea is offered. 5 In Count I the defendant and six others were charged with a complex conspiracy involving the use of the mails in furtherance of a scheme to defraud the East Chicago, Indiana, Board of Sanitary Commissioners and the citizens of that district, as well as the use of interstate and foreign commerce with the intent to bribe public officials. The charge of conspiracy is not a self-explanatory legal term or so simple in meaning that it can be expected or assumed that a lay person understands it. That is particularly true of the conspiracy charge in this case, which took up 25 pages, involved 48 paragraphs and 64 overt acts. However, the district judge failed to ever mention at the time of the plea hearing the nature of the charges in Count I, even, to describe it generally as a conspiracy. The judge made no effort to explain the law of conspiracy generally or by reference to the specific charge of this case, nor did he personally inquire and determine that the defendant understood the nature of the charges. 6 Particularly under the circumstances of this case involving a complex conspiracy, we feel the judge should not have assumed that the defendant already knew and understood what the charges were, but rather the court should have assumed he was ignorant of the charges and thus used the hearing to inform the defendant of some aspects of legal argot and other legal concepts that are esoteric to an accused. United States v. Coronado, 554 F.2d 166 (5th Cir. 1977). The Supreme Court in McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459, 467, 89 S.Ct. 1166, 22 L.Ed.2d 418 (1969), noted that the purposes and goals of Rule 11 are undermined when the court resorts to assumptions, instead of establishing a record based on defendant's responses to the court's questioning, finding that there cannot be compliance with Rule 11 where the district judge does not personally inquire whether the defendant underst(ands) the nature of the charge. This court has also previously held that for the judge to inquire of the defendant whether he has discussed the charges with his attorney, as the judge did in the instant case, does not satisfy the McCarthy mandate or Rule 11. 7 Majko v. United States, 457 F.2d 790 (7th Cir. 1972). We feel that any burden the requirements of Rule 11 place on the court or the district judge is inconsequential in light of its salutary goal of insuring that guilty pleas are voluntarily and intelligently made. 6 We hasten to add that this colloquy between the judge and the defendant as to the nature of the charges will vary from case to case, depending on the peculiar facts of each situation, looking to both the complexity of the charges and the personal characteristics of the defendant, such as his age, education, intelligence, the alacrity of his responses, and also whether he is represented by counsel. Irizarry v. United States, 508 F.2d 960, 964 (2nd Cir. 1974). However, none of these characteristics can be a substitute for the explicit requirement of the rule that the judge personally, in open court, on the record, determine that the defendant knows and understands the nature of the charges. Having examined the record carefully, we find in the present case that the district judge failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 11(c)(1) as to Count I and accordingly, under McCarthy, that guilty plea must be vacated and the defendant allowed to plead anew. 7