Opinion ID: 2995692
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: 2d 1074, 1080 (7th Cir. 1992). Cross-

Text: examination in order to establish credibility, veracity, bias, or motivation is a core concern; at the same time, continuous, cumulative, or repeated exploration of such issues is a peripheral concern which the trial court may curb at its discretion. E.g., United States v. Nelson, 39 F.3d 705, 707-08 (7th Cir. 1994). So long as cross- examination elicits adequate information to allow a jury to assess a witness’s credibility, motives, or possible bias, the Sixth Amendment is not compromised. United States v. Scott, 145 F.3d 878, 888 (7th Cir. 1998) (emphasis added); United States v. Saunders, 166 F.3d 907, 919 (7th Cir. 1999).
At issue is the testimony of Justin Maldonado. Maldonado testified that between 1994 and 1999 he purchased cocaine from Melvin Alicea, Johnny Alicea, and Victor Matias, Jr. When Maldonado was asked by Victor Alicea’s attorney about selling cocaine he invoked his Fifth Amendment right not to answer. However, on re-direct examination by the government Maldonado admitted he told the police about his cocaine sales to others. Neither Melvin Alicea, Johnny Alicea, nor Victor Matias, Jr. asserts a Sixth Amendment violation based on Maldonado’s invocation of his Fifth Amendment right. Instead, Victor Alicea, who Maldonado did not mention, asserts that he was denied his right to confront his accusers by the district court’s ruling sustaining the government’s objection to further questioning after the Fifth Amendment protection was invoked. Victor Alicea argues that by sustaining the government’s objection, the district court prevented him from exposing Maldonado’s criminal activity, which the jury could have used to weigh Maldonado’s credibility. Putting aside the fact that Maldonado never testified about Victor Alicea, Victor Alicea’s Sixth Amendment right was not violated by the district court’s limitation of Alicea’s attorney’s cumulative cross-examination into the specifics of Maldonado’s drug sales. See United States v. Williamson, 202 F.3d 974, 977-79 (7th Cir. 2000). The trial transcript reveals that Victor’s attorney throughly cross-examined Maldonado inquiring about his many purchases of cocaine, sale of cocaine and fake cocaine, the government’s failure to prosecute him for those prior acts, and the government’s current deal with him pertaining to this trial. (Tr., Aug. 1, 2000, a.m. session, at 101-106). Also, at closing arguments Victor’s attorney stated: He [Maldonado] was passing off just one more story, one more thing that would help him out in keeping his record of not being prosecuted for now seven counts he still has open or seven different people that he sold drugs to that the government was aware of that he’s not been prosecuted for. (Tr., Aug. 1, 2000, p.m. session, at 73-74). These are the same facts that Victor claims he was prevented from developing on cross- examination. After all this testimony there is absolutely no doubt the jury was well aware of Maldonado’s character and motivations for testifying. Williamson, 202 F.3d at 977 (The right to cross- examination is not unlimited; the Confrontation Clause guarantees only effective cross-examination, not cross- examination of any type sought by the defendant.). The district court did not abuse its discretion by limiting further cross-examination on this peripheral matter. F. U.S.S.G. sec. 6B1.2 Rejection of a Plea Agreement A district court’s decision to accept or reject a plea agreement is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Sandles, 80 F.3d 1145, 1147 (7th Cir. 1996); United States v. Greener, 979 F.2d 517, 518 (7th Cir. 1992). The district court, exercising its discretion, may accept or reject a guilty plea since there is no absolute right to have a guilty plea accepted. Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 262 (1971); United States v. Denegal, 678 F.2d 47, 50 (7th Cir. 1982); Greener, 979 F.2d at 519-20. Plea agreements are contracts between the parties, and like stipulations, do not bind the court. See Sandles, 80 F.3d at 1147-48. Under the rubric of the Sentencing Guidelines the court has the responsibility to use its sound discretion to examine plea agreements. As section 6B1.2(a) of the Sentencing Guidelines provides: In the case of a plea agreement that includes the dismissal of any charges or an agreement not to pursue potential charges [Rule 11(e)(1)(A)], the court may accept the agreement if the court determines, for reasons stated on the record, that the remaining charges adequately reflect the seriousness of the actual offense behavior and that accepting the agreement will not undermine the statutory purposes of sentencing or the sentencing guidelines. U.S.S.G. sec. 6B1.2(a) (Policy Statement) (emphasis added). Additionally, the official commentary to section 6B1.2 pro vides: This requirement does not authorize judges to intrude upon the charging discretion of the prosecutor. If the government’s motion to dismiss charges or statement that potential charges will not be pursued is not contingent on the disposition of the remaining charges, the judge should defer to the government’s position except under extraordinary circumstances. Rule 48(a), Fed. R. Crim. P. However, when the dismissal of charges or agreement not to pursue potential charges is contingent on acceptance of a plea agreement, the court’s authority to adjudicate guilt and impose sentence is implicated, and the court is to determine whether or not dismissal of charges will undermine the sentencing guidelines. U.S.S.G. sec. 6B1.2 (commentary) (emphasis added). The sentencing judge must ensure that the main objectives of the sentencing guidelines, consistency and certainty in sentencing, are not undermined by plea bargaining between the parties. Greener, 979 F.2d at 520. It is with these principles in mind we turn to the challenge at hand. 1. Victor Matias, Jr. (01-1929) The plea agreement provided that Victor Matias, Jr. would plead guilty to conspiracy, and under oath he provided testimony regarding the activities of the conspiracy. In exchange, the government would dismiss the remaining two counts of the indictment for distribution. After the parties agreed to the plea, Matias, Jr. testified at the trial of Hector Carrasco, Johnny Alicea, and Victor Alicea. Matias, Jr.’s testimony at trial was directly contradictory to his prior sworn testimony. Matias, Jr. denied that he and the other three defendants on trial engaged in any drug deals, purchases, or conspiracy. Based on the plea agreement the maximum sentence for the remaining conspiracy charge was 240 months (20 years) in prison. The PSR had previously calculated his potential sentence (based on all three counts and applicable enhancements) at 360 months (30 years) to life in prison. At sentencing, the district court reviewed the plea agreement and rejected it, finding it did not adequately reflect the severity of the defendant’s conduct and would undermine the sentencing guidelines. Matias, Jr. subsequently withdrew his guilty plea. A superceding indictment alleging five counts was returned and the district court dismissed the prior indictment. A trial commenced and the jury found Matias, Jr. guilty on all five counts. The district court then sentenced Matias, Jr. to 360 months (30 years) and 5 years supervised release, and a concurrent term of 240 months (20 years) and 3 years supervised release. Matias, Jr. does not argue that the district court abused its discretion in rejecting his plea agreement. Rather, Matias, Jr. asserts that the district court usurped the authority of the prosecutor in violation the principle of separation of powers. In the alternative, Matias, Jr. argues that U.S.S.G. sec. 6B1.2 is unconstitutional. These claims are, by far, the most imaginative arguments raised by any of the defendants in this appeal, albeit equally unsuccessful. At the outset, Matias, Jr. seeks to treat the dismissal of the other counts as separate from the plea agreement. In the context of a plea agreement, the dismissal of specific charges is contingent on the defendant’s guilty plea to other charges; in sum the dismissal and guilty plea are two parts of one agreement. Cf. United States v. Peterson, 268 F.3d 533, 534 (7th Cir. 2001). A plea agreement is a unified document, and even if the district court wanted to it could not accept part and reject part. See id. (The whole plea agreement stands, or the whole thing falls.). Matias, Jr. cites a number of cases in which a district court refused to grant a prosecutor’s motion to dismiss the indictment under Fed. R. Crim. P. 48 and were reversed on appeal. The decision to indict, allege specific charges, or dismiss charges is inherently an exercise of executive power, and the prosecutor has broad discretion in these matters. See, e.g., Newman v. United States, 382 F.2d 479, 480-82 (D.C. Cir. 1967) (Burger, J.). The executive can choose not to prosecute one case, yet prosecute vigorously another involving the same issues. See id. (citing cases and stating that [t]wo persons may have committed what is precisely the same legal offense but the prosecutor is not compelled by law, duty or tradition to treat them the same as to charges.). The judiciary cannot compel prosecutions, nor can a judge refuse to grant the prosecution’s voluntary motion to dismiss charges absent a specific finding of bad faith. See United States v. Palomares, 119 F.3d 556, 558 (7th Cir. 1997); United States v. Smith, 55 F.3d 157, 158-59 (4th Cir. 1995). Rule 48 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, requiring leave of court to dismiss an indictment, checks the discretionary power of the prosecutor to seek a nolle prosequi and later re- indict on the same charges. Rule 48 allows a court to ensure the fair administration of justice and prevent harassment of a defendant. Smith, 55 F.3d at 158-59. The leave of court requirement does not allow the judiciary to exercise executive powers; rather the condition protects the justice system judges oversee from misuse after proceedings have been initiated by the executive. See United States v. Goodson, 204 F.3d 508, 512-15 (4th Cir. 2000) (noting a court may dismiss charges under Rule 48(b) to preserve the integrity of the judicial process.). Since the judicial check on the prosecutorial power is a very limited one, a prosecutor’s motion to dismiss must be granted unless clearly contrary to manifest public interest. Smith, 55 F.3d at 158-59; United States v. Hamm, 659 F.2d 624, 628-30 (5th Cir., Unit A, Oct. 1981) (en banc); see also Rinaldi v. United States, 434 U.S. 22, 30 (1977). Judicial discretion becomes extremely limited in circumstances where the prosecutor seeks to dismiss the indictment with prejudice and the defendant joins the motion. The facts of this case are in stark contrast to the Rule 48 cases cited above. The district court, exercising its authority under U.S.S.G. 6B1.2, rejected a plea agreement, not a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 48. The United States Attorney for the Western District of Wisconsin did not once object to the district court’s rejection of the plea agreement, and does not assert that prosecutorial authority has been, in any way, usurped. As this panel suggested at oral argument, the Assistant U.S. Attorney, if he wanted to, could have effectuated the same result the plea agreement sought to by moving to dismiss the other counts with prejudice and having Matias, Jr. plead guilty to the remaining count. If Matias, Jr. joined a motion to dismiss with prejudice, the court would have been required to grant the motion, absent a specific finding that dismissal would be manifestly against the public interest. Cf. Hamm, 659 F.2d 629-30; Smith, 33 F.3d at 159. However, the U.S. Attorney was not upset by the rejection of the plea agreement because Matias, Jr., after accepting the benefits of the plea agreement, attempted to sabotage the U.S. Attorney’s case by taking the witness stand and committing perjury in the trial of three other coconspirators. As we noted at the outset of this analysis, the court has a role to play in plea bargains and need not accept a plea agreement because there is no absolute right to plead guilty. Greener, 979 F.2d at 519-20. The district court in Greener rejected two plea agreements before finally accepting a third, and we found the rejections to be well within the court’s discretion. Id. The agreement here did not bind the court, and it was free to reject the agreement if it found the agreement would undermine the sentencing guidelines or did not adequately take into account the defendant’s relevant conduct. See id.; Sandles, 80 F.3d at 1147-49. Taking into consideration Matias, Jr.’s role in the conspiracy and the sentence he would receive, the district court properly rejected the plea on the grounds it would undermine the sentencing guidelines. Greener, 979 F.2d at 519-20. The district court’s role in reviewing plea agreements under U.S.S.G. 6B1.2 is neither improper, nor an exercise of executive authority in violation of the constitution. We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting the plea agreement in this case.