Opinion ID: 2613153
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Validity of Consistency Clause in Ann Fisher's Letter of Agreement

Text: The Letter of Agreement entered into by the defendant, her attorney, the prosecutor, and the original trial judge, Judge Marquardt, contains the following provision: (4) The plea agreement is further conditioned on an avowal by [Ann Fisher] that if she is called as a witness in the trial of James Fisher, and required to testify, her testimony will not vary substantially in relevant areas to the statements previously given to investigative officers of the State of Arizona, and the States of Iowa and Illinois. This court has never expressly determined the validity of such consistency provisions. At the hearing on the motion for a new trial, Judge Dann found that the agreement violated defendant's due process rights because it interfer[ed] with the truth-seeking process and defeated the appearance, if not the actuality, of justice. In Fisher I, 141 Ariz. at 244, 686 P.2d at 767, we commented that the plea agreement here is unusual, if not unethical, but we did not address its validity: Though we need not determine the validity of this agreement, we do question its propriety. We recognize the benefits to be gained from granting a defendant immunity in exchange for truthful testimony ... and for granting plea bargains in the interest of judicial economy. The instant case involves more than that. The prosecution did not condition conviction for a lesser offense on a defendant's promise to tell the truth. Instead, the prosecution conditioned conviction for a lesser offense on a defendant's promise to be consistent. By doing so, the prosecution may have overstepped the bounds of the law and its ethical responsibility to scrupulously avoid any suggestion calculated to induce the witness to suppress or deviate from the truth, or in any degree to affect his free and untrammeled conduct when appearing at the trial or on the witness stand. A.B.A. Canons of Professional Ethics 39. We remind the prosecution that a public prosecutor's duty is to seek justice, not merely to convict and that a public prosecutor should not intentionally avoid pursuit of evidence merely because he believes it will damage his case or aid the accused. A.B.A. Model Code of Professional Responsibility, Ethical Consideration 7-13. Id. at 244 n. 5, 686 P.2d at 767 n. 5. Also, in State v. Cook, 170 Ariz. 40, 59, 821 P.2d 731, 750 (1991), again without reaching the merits, we reiterated the inherent ethical problems with consistency provisions. Today, we hold that such consistency provisions in plea agreements are unenforceable. Plea agreements may, of course, properly be conditioned upon truthful and complete testimony. In support of our holding of unenforceability, we rely on cases from other jurisdictions and on public policy reasons. In a line of cases beginning with People v. Medina, 41 Cal. App.3d 438, 455, 116 Cal. Rptr. 133, 145 (1974), California courts have recognized that a defendant is denied a fair trial if the prosecution's case depends substantially upon accomplice testimony and the accomplice witness is placed, either by the prosecution or the court, under a strong compulsion to testify in a particular fashion. In Medina, the accomplices faced first degree murder charges if their testimony `materially or substantially' differed from the prior recorded statement. Id. at 452, 116 Cal. Rptr. at 143; see also People v. Meza, 116 Cal. App.3d 988, 994, 172 Cal. Rptr. 531, 534 (1981) (improper for a plea agreement to require that testimony must be confined to a predetermined formulation). The California Supreme Court has held that the requirements of due process ... are met if the agreement ... permits the witness to testify freely at trial and to respond to any claim that he breached the agreement by showing that the testimony he gave was a full and truthful account. People v. Fields, 35 Cal.3d 329, 197 Cal. Rptr. 803, 823, 673 P.2d 680, 700 (1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 892, 105 S.Ct. 267, 83 L.Ed.2d 204 (1984); see also People v. Allen, 42 Cal.3d 1222, 232 Cal. Rptr. 849, 865, 729 P.2d 115, 131 (1986). Several other states follow California in holding that due process prohibits a plea agreement from conditioning leniency upon anything other than truthful and complete testimony. [1] In most cases reaching a constitutional due process issue, the state has obtained a conviction through use of testimony that was tainted by an improper consistency provision. In this case, the person entering into the improper agreement did not testify. Arguably, however, that person was prevented from supplying evidence helpful to the defendant by reason of the improper consistency provision. Clearly, there is evidence that Ann Fisher made statements inconsistent with those made to the Arizona, Iowa, and Illinois authorities. Yet her agreement required her testimony to adhere only to the official, sanctioned version. Without regard to whether defendant's due process rights were also violated, we have no hesitation in holding that the provision is unenforceable. Agreements such as the one involved here undermine the reliability and fairness of the trial and plea bargaining processes and taint the truth-seeking function of the courts by placing undue pressure on witnesses to stick with one version of the facts regardless of its truthfulness. The constraints imposed upon the witness bound by a promise to testify with consistency frustrate the jury's duty to determine the credibility of the witness. We have a duty to ensure and protect the fairness and integrity of the judicial system. Our refusal to enforce consistency provisions enhances the reliability of testimony given pursuant to plea agreements, helps ensure the fairness of the trial and plea bargaining processes, and maintains the integrity of the judicial system. By enforcing contingent plea bargains, courts sanction the prosecutor's power to persuade an accomplice to disregard his oath of truthfulness in order to obtain penal leniency. This use of the bargaining process by the prosecution perverts the truth-seeking purpose of the judicial system. Yvette A. Beeman, Note, Accomplice Testimony Under Contingent Plea Agreements, 72 Cornell L.Rev. 800, 824 (1987). The prosecution should have bargained with Ann only for truthful and accurate testimony. Such an agreement maintains the integrity of the plea agreement process and promotes a fair trial without encouraging unreliable testimony. All the problems inherent in consistency provisions are exacerbated in this particular case by the original trial judge's inexplicable participation. The letter of agreement expressly provides that Judge Marquardt is a party to the agreement, and he signed it as such. He then presided at defendant's trial and, when Ann took the Fifth, the agreement, to which the judge was a party, was received in evidence. Thus the jury knew that the trial judge was a party to Ann's letter of agreement. The agreement, its consistency provision, and the trial judge's participation in the agreement most likely were read by the jury as meaning Ann's testimony, if received, would have been favorable to her and harmful to the defendant. The jury did not hear evidence that Ann had confessed to the crime and had exonerated defendant. Surely the jury was left with the impression that the trial court had placed its imprimatur on the agreement and that it must, therefore, be proper, as well as fair. The agreement to which the judge became a party was received in evidence. Under Ariz.R.Evid. 605, the judge presiding at a trial may not testify in that trial as a witness. No objection need be made to preserve the point. And, under Canon 3(C)(1)(a), and (d)(iv), Code of Judicial Conduct, a judge should disqualify himself from a proceeding where he has personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts or may be a material witness in the proceeding. We agree with Judge Dann's statement that, with Judge Marquardt's participation in the agreement, a violative coercive force was set in motion with unpredictable effect on the witness and the defendant's trial. Ann Fisher took the stand knowing that the trial judge, with whom she had made an agreement, had the power to revoke her letter of agreement if she did not testify consistently with her earlier statements to the authorities. If her agreement were revoked, she faced a possible death sentence. She preserved her agreement by refusing to testify, although her testimony could have been helpful to the defendant. We agree with the trial court that the consistency provision in Ann Fisher's letter of agreement is unenforceable.