Opinion ID: 1456355
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Introduction of Written Plea Agreement

Text: In this circuit, a confederate's guilty plea or plea agreement is admissible on the government's direct examination of the witness as evidence of the witness' credibility or of his acknowledgement of participation in the offense. United States v. Drews, 877 F.2d 10, 12 (8th Cir. 1989). Whether to admit a written plea agreement into evidence is committed to the district court's discretion. United States v. Morris, 327 F.3d 760, 762 (8th Cir.2003). In response to a defendant's argument that admission of a plea agreement of a witness unfairly bolstered the witness['s] credibility because [its] terms required [the witness] to testify truthfully, this court has stated: [W]hile the existence of a plea agreement may support the witness' credibility by showing his or her interest in testifying truthfully, the plea agreement may also impeach the witness' credibility by showing his or her interest in testifying as the government wishes regardless of the truth. Introduction of the entire plea agreement permits the jury to consider fully the possible conflicting motivations underlying the witness' testimony and, thus, enables the jury to more accurately assess the witness' credibility. Drews, 877 F.2d at 12 (internal quotations and citations omitted). Thus, evidence of the existence, the terms, and the witness's understanding of a plea or witness immunity agreement is not vouching. United States v. Santana, 150 F.3d 860, 863 (8th Cir.1998) (internal quotations, citation, and alteration omitted) (holding that there was no impermissible vouching when witness, when asked to explain terms of his plea agreement, replied Just to tell the truth.); see also United States v. Tulk, 171 F.3d 596, 600 (8th Cir.1999) (holding that, where government admitted into evidence unredacted plea agreement in which witness had stipulated to involvement with the defendants in possessing and distributing methamphetamine, such evidence did not bolster the credibility of the government witnesses because [e]vidence showing the existence of a plea agreement, its terms, and a witness' understanding of the agreement is not improper); United States v. Kamerud, 326 F.3d 1008, 1017 (8th Cir.2003) (The prosecutor did not improperly vouch for the government's cooperating witnesses merely by asking them about the plea agreements they had reached with the government, part of which included the government's agreement to move for downward departures on their sentences in exchange for truthful testimony.). Here, Christofferson's plea agreement contained provisions requiring Christofferson's cooperation with the government and requiring her testimony to be truthful. Our circuit's precedent permits admission of such plea agreements as evidence of the witness's credibility and leaves the matter to the sound discretion of the district court.