Opinion ID: 2257771
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Sarro's Refusal to Testify

Text: Next, Zebroski argues that the trial court erred by acknowledging what he perceived to be an invocation by Sarro of his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. Zebroski contends that, as a consequence of a plea agreement entered into between Sarro and the State, Sarro did not retain his privilege against self-incrimination. According to Zebroski, the Superior Court's erroneous recognition of the privilege resulted in a presentation to the defense of a Hobson's Choice, whereby the defense could only (1) stipulate to the admissibility of Sarro's pre-trial statement and relinquish confrontation rights or (2) forego the evidence altogether. Having chosen the former avenue, Zebroski now alleges that the admission of the taped statement, necessitated by the trial court's alleged error, violated his confrontation rights under the United States and Delaware Constitutions. We begin by addressing the foundation for defendant's claim-namely, that Sarro's plea agreement with the State operated as a waiver of his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. A voluntary plea agreement embodies a bargain struck between an accused and the prosecution whereby a guilty plea is exchanged for sentencing concessions. By entering a guilty plea under a plea agreement, a defendant detrimentally relies on the promises of a prosecutor and often relinquishes substantial constitutional rights, including the Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination. [16] Upon such reliance, the State may not withdraw from a plea agreement and must uphold its end of the relied-upon bargain during sentencing before the trial court. [17] In the event that a defendant proceeds to breach any subsequent obligations under the plea agreement, the prosecution may, if the plea agreement so provides, move to vacate defendant's agreed-upon conviction and sentence, reimposing the original charges without violating double jeopardy principles. [18] Conversely, should the prosecution fail to uphold its commitment under the plea agreement by breaching a promise upon which a guilty plea is based, the resulting conviction cannot stand. [19] Although Sarro entered a guilty plea pursuant to an agreement with the State in this case, the agreement was inchoate until consummated. Thus, we conclude that his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination remained intact. Sarro was not granted immunity with respect to his trial testimony. Under the terms of the agreement, Sarro's sentencing was deferred until after the disposition of Zebroski's case. Sarro's obligation to testify therefore arose at a time when the agreement was still susceptible to being nullified upon the occurrence of either of two alternative events: (1) a breach of the plea agreement by the State or (2) a refusal on the part of the court to accept the plea agreement. Consequently, when Sarro took the stand in Zebroski's trial, the deferral of both the State's obligation to perform and the consummation of the agreement left Sarro with a real and substantial threat of prosecution on his original charges. [20] Regardless of the risk that Sarro's refusal to testify may have posed to him for failing to fulfill the terms of the plea agreement (including exposure to trial on the original charges against him), we hold that the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination was nevertheless available to Sarro at the time of Zebroski's trial. The following excerpts of the colloquy on this issue at trial reveal that Sarro, through counsel, was cognizant of his Fifth Amendment privilege and that Zebroski voluntarily waived his confrontation rights by stipulating to the admission of Sarro's pre-trial statement: MR. APOSTOLICO: Your Honor, I think we would ask the Court to advise Mr. Sarro that there are penalties for refusing to testify after being called as a witness in a case. MR. BERNSTEIN: Your Honor, if I could interject. I would assert to the Court, as I did a few minutes ago, I believe Mr. Sarro at this point has a Fifth Amendment right to refuse to testify.... [I]f Mr. Apostolico is asking the Court to order Mr. Sarro to testify, I would object on the ground that he has a Fifth Amendment privilege and we could revisit the issue at some perhaps more appropriate time....    MR. APOSTOLICO: After consultation with Mr. Sarro, it's clear that he is not going to testify in this case.... The defense and State have essentially stipulated that [Sarro's pre-trial] statements may be admissible.... And it's fair to say, I believe, that the reason why the defense has stipulated to this is essentially for strategic reasons, and the State has agreed. MR. WINSLOW: ... [T]he defense wants to stipulate to the admissibility to the [pre-trial] statements.... So we do hereby stipulate to their admission as evidence.... THE COURT: I gather, Mr. Winslow, for purposes of the record that you've made the decision that although there may be things in Mr. Sarro's statement that are not helpful to the defense, there are other things in the statements that are helpful and so it is in the defendant's best interests to use those [statements]? MR. WINSLOW: Yes, and for other reasons. THE COURT: Very well. [21] Contrary to Zebroski's contention on appeal, the Superior Court did not rule on the apparent invocation by Sarro of what we hold to be an existing constitutional privilege against self-incrimination. Rather, the ambiguous state of the record at trial was mooted by the way the parties themselves resolved the issue of Sarro's refusal to testify. As evident from the above-quoted colloquy, when Sarro refused to honor his agreement to cooperate with the State by testifying truthfully at Zebroski's trial, the Superior Court granted a request by the parties for a reasonable amount of time to consult with Sarro in an effort to encourage him to testify. When that meeting proved fruitless, the parties immediately announced their stipulation that Sarro's pre-trial statement would be admissible, without requesting sanctions or contempt proceedings. Although the Superior Court confirmed defense counsel's belief that it was in Zebroski's best interest to admit the taped statement and allowed the parties to proceed accordingly, there was never any ruling by the court because the stipulation of the parties obviated the need for a ruling. The record clearly indicates that the defense wanted Sarro's statement admitted for strategic reasons and because admission of the statement was thought by the defense to be in the defendant's best interest. Accordingly, we hold that Zebroski's contention on appeal that the Superior Court erroneously recognized a Fifth Amendment testimonial bar and consequently deprived Zebroski of his confrontation rights is without merit.