Opinion ID: 677450
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Letter from prosecutor regarding leniency

Text: 29 Despite his sworn statement to the district court that no promises other than those set forth in the plea agreement were made to him, Michlin now contends that his attorney told him that the prosecutor would write a letter to the court recommending leniency in sentencing. 30 At the evidentiary hearing on defendants' withdrawal motion, the district court heard testimony on this issue. Michlin's former attorney, Donald Green, testified that he had neither received assurances from the prosecutor that leniency would be recommended, nor told Michlin that the prosecutor had made any such promises. Green also speculated that Michlin might have mistaken a Kastigar letter (in which Michlin agreed that the government could make derivative use of information he provided in his proffer, thereby avoiding the necessity for a hearing under Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 92 S.Ct. 1653, 32 L.Ed.2d 212 (1972)), for a letter recommending leniency. 31 Michlin also testified at the hearing on the withdrawal motion, and himself diminished the importance of the letter (Basically the letter and all that, you know, it's really not of much interest to me), stressing instead his purported belief at the time of the guilty plea that he was not pleading to a separate Sec. 924(c) count. 32 On this record, we once again conclude that Michlin has failed to show that his plea was not knowing and voluntary.