Document: 513 U.S. 196115 S.Ct. 797130 L.Ed.2d 697 UNITED STATES, Petitionerv.Gary MEZZANATTO. No. 93-1340. Supreme Court of the United States Argued Nov. 2, 1994. Decided Jan. 18, 1995. Syllabus * Respondent was convicted on federal drug charges after being cross-examined, over his counsel's objection, about inconsistent statements that he had made during an earlier plea discussion. The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding respondent's agreement any in discussion could be used at trial for impeachment purposes unenforceable under Federal Rule Evidence 410 and Criminal Procedure 11(e)(6) (Rules or plea-statement Rules), which exclude from admission into evidence against a criminal defendant bargaining. Held: An to waive Rules' exclusionary provisions is valid enforceable absent some affirmative indication entered unknowingly involuntarily. Pp. __. (a) Contrary Circuit's conclusion, failure include express waiver-enabling clause does not demonstrate Congress' intent preclude waiver agreements such as respondent's. Rather, Rules were enacted background presumption legal rights generally, evidentiary specifically, are subject by voluntary parties. See, e.g., Ricketts v. Adamson, 483 1, 10, 107 2680, 2685-2686, 97 1; Sac Fox Indians Mississippi Iowa Oklahoma, 220 481, 488-489, 31 473, 476-477, 55 L.Ed. 552. Crosby States, 506 ----, 113 748, 751-752, 122 25 Smith 360 9, 79 991, 996-97, 3 1041 distinguished. bears responsibility identifying basis concluding depart waivability. (b) three potential bases offered respondent consonant with waivability—(a) establish "guarantee [to] fair procedure" cannot waived, fundamentally goal encouraging settlement, (c) should forbidden because they invite prosecutorial overreaching abuse—are persuasive. Instead per se rejection adopted Circuit, appropriate approach permit case-by-case inquiries whether product fraud coercion. Here, conferred lawyer prosecutor proposed condition proceeding discussion, has never complained issue 998 F.2d 1452, reversed. THOMAS, J., delivered opinion Court, REHNQUIST, C.J., O'CONNOR, SCALIA, KENNEDY, GINSBURG, BREYER, JJ., joined. filed concurring statement, O'CONNOR SOUTER, dissenting opinion, STEVENS, Miguel A. Estrada, Washington, DC, petitioner. Mark R. Lippman, La Jolla, CA, respondent. Justice THOMAS Court. 1 provide course discussions between inadmissible defendant. court below held these may waived We granted certiorari resolve conflict among Courts Appeals, we now reverse. 2 On August 1991, San Diego Narcotics Task Force agents arrested Gordon Shuster discovering methamphetamine laboratory residence Rainbow, California. agreed cooperate agents, few hours arrest placed call pager. When returned call, told him friend wanted purchase pound $13,000. arranged meet later day. At their meeting, introduced undercover officer "friend." asked if "brought stuff him," it car. two proceeded car, where produced brown paper package containing approximately one methamphetamine. then presented glass pipe (later found contain residue) take "hit." indicated would first get money; left gave prearranged signal. charged possession distribute, violation 84 Stat. 1260, amended, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). 4 October 17, attorney discuss possibility cooperating Government. beginning informed no obligation talk, but have completely truthful. As agree meeting impeach contradictory testimony might give case far. counsel proceed prosecutor's terms. 5 admitted knowing attempted sell police contained methamphetamine, insisted dealt only "ounce" quantities prior arrest. Initially, also claimed acting merely broker did know manufacturing residence, conceded knew Shuster's laboratory. minimize role operation claiming visited least week before this point, Government confronted surveillance showing car property day arrest, terminated truthful information. 6 eventually tried charge took stand own defense. He maintained involved trafficking thought home manufacture plastic explosives CIA. denied Over defense cross-examined 17 meeting. having certain statements, called who attended recount statements. jury guilty, District sentenced 170 months prison. 7 A panel dissent Chief Judge Wallace. 1452 (1993). allow therefore erred admitting purpose. decision conflicts Seventh Dortch, F.3d 1056, 1067-1068 II 8 Rules) substantively identical. provides: 9 "Except otherwise provided rule, following not, civil proceeding, admissible . participant discussions: (4) statement prosecuting authority do result guilty. ." 10 noted exceptions,1 neither says anything waiver, thus concluded Congress must meant F.2d, 1454-1456. In light "precision rules generally phrased," declined "write waiverless rule." Id., 1456.2 11 analysis directly contrary taken context broad array constitutional statutory provisions. Rather than deeming presumptively unavailable sort enabling clause, instead adhered opposite presumption. See Shutte Thompson, 15 Wall. 151, 159, 123 (1873) ("A party provision, either contract statute, intended benefit"); Peretz 501 923, 936, 111 2661, 2669, 115 808 (1991) ("The most basic defendants waiver"). knowingly voluntarily many fundamental protections afforded Constitution. (1987) (double jeopardy waivable pre-trial agreement); Boykin Alabama, 395 238, 243, 89 1709, 1712, 23 274 (1969) (knowing guilty waives privilege compulsory self-incrimination, right trial, confront one's accusers); Johnson Zerbst, 304 458, 465, 58 1019, 1023, 82 1461 (1938) (Sixth Amendment waived). Likewise, presumed Evans Jeff D., 475 717, 730-732, 106 1531, 1538-1540, 747 (1986) (prevailing civil-rights action its eligibility attorney's fees). 12 Our cases interpreting consistent approach. those waivable, though suggest occupy field other, unstated circumstances. (1993); (1959). Crosby, example, defendant's appear part constitute present 43. specific codified 43 "was considered unwaivable felony cases" common law, expressly recognized exception law rule. U.S., 751-752. common-law history behind provision Rule, conclude "that drafters go further." 754). followed similar line reasoning. It indictment requirement embodied 7(a) confined circumstances outlined Rule's text: "Rule recognizes safeguard proceedings noncapital." 997. Unlike 7(a), however, make mention so setting aside usual 13 waivability application rules. Absent "overriding procedural consideration prevents enforcement contract," courts even party's subsequent objections. C. Wright & K. Graham, Practice 5039, pp. 207-208 (1977) (hereinafter Graham). "liberally enforced" various evidence. Note, Contracts Alter Evidence, 46 Harv. L.Rev. 138, 139-140 (1933). Thus, time adoption admissibility documentary routinely enforced objections authenticity. Tupman Thurlow Co. S.S. Cap Castillo, 490 302, 309 (CA2 1974); Wing, 450 806, 811 (CA9 1971). And although hearsay except exceptions, enforceable. 552 (1911); see Bonnett, 877 1450, 1458-1459 (CA10 1989) (party's stipulation document precluded objection trial). 14 Indeed, stipulations valuable integral everyday practice. Prior parties often writing objectionable evidence, exchange opposing other strategic purposes. Both Civil contemplate will enter pretrial conference. Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 16(c)(3); Crim.Proc. 17.1. During frequently decide objections, tactics honored judges. Graham 5032, 161 ("It parties, instance, enforced. rare judge content admitted"); Coonan, 938 1553, 1561 1991) (criminal entitled "to evade consequences unsuccessful tactical decision" welcoming evidence).3 III Because interpret silence implicit 16 offers beyond control find none them suggests waived. Brief 12. premise: there reliability fact-finding process without irreparably "discredit[ing] courts." supra, 207-208; Wheat 486 153, 162, 108 1692, 1698-1699, 100 140 (1988) (court decline conflict-free counsel); Josefik, 753 585, 588 (CA7 1985) ("No doubt limits waiver; stipulated orangutans conviction invalid notwithstanding consent, minimum civilized procedure required community feeling regardless what wants willing accept"). But like plainly effect. enhances truth-seeking function trials more accurate verdicts. Cf. Jenkins Anderson, 447 231, 2124, 2129, 65 86 (1980) (once decides testify, face cross-examination, furthers " 'function justice ascertain truth' ") (quoting Brown 356 148, 156, 78 622, 627, 589 (1958)); Harv.L.Rev., 142-143 ("[A] deprive relevant stands different ground been barred One impediment ascertaining facts, aids final determination true situation"). Under view false trial; making aware inconsistency tend increase verdict risking institutional harm courts. 18 nevertheless urges analogous 24(c), provides "[a]n alternate juror replace regular shall discharged retires consider verdict." KENNEDY's concurrence Olano, 507 1770, 508 (1993), suggested guarantees 24(c) jurors sit deliberations, asks us extend logic Rules. assume requirements "the judgment our system given stable constant structure, varied consent parties," id., 1782, satisfy standard. "creat[e], effect, defendant," J. Weinstein M. Berger, Weinstein's ¶ 410[05], p. 410-43 (1994), and, privileges, request. "against" defendant, leave open offer advantage. permitting "in wherein another same ought fairness contemporaneously it." Evid. 410(i) (emphasis added); accord, 11(e)(6)(i). degree waivability.4 B 19 contends settlement. Advisory Committee Notes Fed. (purpose "promotion disposition compromise"). prospect "think twice" entering negotiation, acts "as brake, facilitator, plea-bargain process." 23, n. 17. expressed concerns, noting "aid obtaining th[e] cooperation" necessary identify prosecute leaders conspiracy "could easily chilling effect entire bargaining 1455. According "permit bargainer maximize 'to sell' preserving ability withdraw bargain harmed aborted session." Ibid. 20 need substantial "public policy" interests inference override waivability, interfere focused entirely incentives ignored essential transaction: prosecutor. availability discourage negotiating, prosecutors unwilling it. Prosecutors especially reluctant negotiate early stages investigation, when searching leads suspects information form immunity leniency sentencing. "cooperation" context, "painfully delicate" choices "whether whom already makes full order procure dangerous existing flimsy nonexistent." Hughes, Agreements Cooperation Cases, 45 Vand.L.Rev. (1992). limited resources able answer "sensitive questions credibility testimony" receive cooperation agreement, Thompson Sumner, Structuring Informal Immunity, Crim.Just. 16, (spring 1993). If securing agreements, well place step toward bargain.5 22 logical matter, simply sense mutual settlement encouraged precluding negotiation particularly important transaction. sounder way encourage interested negotiations arbitrary chips. To use metaphor, "buying" assurance accompanies can stifle market bargains. "maximize" "sell" permitted buying. while certainly help small fish catch big ones, reason altogether. crucial gained inadmissibility intact sum, believe allowing bring grinding halt; effect.6 Respondent's unfounded policy argument prevent offering negotiation. C 24 Finally, abuse. asserts "gross disparity" relative power "inherently unfair coercive." 26. retains discretion "reward assistance" Sentencing Guidelines, argues 'incredible dilemma' accept price discussions. Green 355 184, 193, 221, 226, 199 (1957)). dilemma flagged indistinguishable number difficult every necessarily exerts pressure plead abandon series rights, repeatedly government "may benefits return plea." Corbitt New Jersey, 439 212, 219, 99 492, 497-498, 466 (1978). "While confronting risk severe punishment clearly 'discouraging assertion imposition [is] inevitable'—and permissible —'attribute legitimate tolerates encourages pleas.' Bordenkircher Hayes, 434 357, 364, 98 663, 668-669, 54 604 (1978) Chaffin Stynchcombe, 412 31, 93 1977, 1985, 36 714 (1973)). 26 mere abuse insufficient foreclosing "Rather, tradition experience justify belief great majority faithful duty." Newton Rumery, 480 386, 397, 1187, 1194, 94 405 (plurality opinion); Chemical Foundation, Inc., 272 14-15, 47 6, 71 131 (1926) ("in absence clear contrary, presume [public officers] properly official duties"). decision," "does invalidating all agreements." Newton, 393, 1192 (majority opinion). Instead, response predictions hold involuntarily, IV 27 based Accordingly, Appeals 28 ordered. 29 BREYER join, concurring. 30 holds compatible Congress's promote be, case-in-chief severely undermine incentive negotiate, thereby inhibit sought here explore question. djQ STEVENS joins, dissenting. This poses question: intend create personal individual beneficiaries Procedure, each providing carefully described circumstances? raises settled courts, applicable (and sound) judicial respecting waivers privileges reading reasonably construed accord Congress, congressional prevail. ruling odds render largely dead letters, I respectfully dissent. 32 glance, question seem short substance, unconditional language virtually identical Rules, unsoftened allusion possibility: [of] [subject stated exceptions]." 410. 33 Believers plain meaning excused thinking text answers something say plain, silent. assumed arguably finds itself company including accepted out mind freely waivable. must, indeed, seriously bars equally uncompromising nonetheless 802 (hearsay); 1002 (best evidence). 34 comes down side through reliance general favor recognizing rights. sure, us, describes counter-examples insulated prohibited terms speak expressly. Still, seems express-waiver describe recognition foreclosed, since nothing "waiver" such, fact really end matter. 35 here, I, too, join relying fall-back rule waiver. on. There is, good rejected passed once squarely faced, business respect (or deflect applying constitutionally mandated statement). course, claim hobbled bound congressionally reveal. Williamson 512 ---- - 114 2431, 129 476 (1994) (KENNEDY, judgment) (citing authoritative intent). underlying Notes, account dealing possible significance discussions, possibly litigate consequence plea-bargaining feature system, "[p]roperly administered, encouraged." Santobello York, 404 257, 260, 92 495, 498, 427 (1971). Thus Committee's explained "[e]xclusion nolo purpose promotion compromise." U.S.C.App., 750. "As compromise free communication needed, security related effectively drew conclusion summed up object both unrestrained candor produces effective pro se." 745 (1979 Amendment) (internal quotation marks omitted). 37 These explanations show reasonable clarity probably assumptions Rules: pleas encouraged, conditions means encouragement. protecting shielding imprudence. serve interest (whose controlled Congress), creating understood promoting agreements. Whether wrong Since zone diminished whenever stop think amount trouble openness cause fall through, system's candid threatened 11(e)(6). ABA Standards 14-3.4, commentary (2d ed. 1980) (a "would constantly concerned whether, activities, successfully defend merits ultimately entered"). regime happen survive forces sufficient supplant default inadmissibility. Nor Brooklyn Savings Bank O'Neil, 324 697, 704, 895, 900, 1296 (1945) ("Where private public effectuate legislative policy, colored allowed thwart designed effectuate"). 38 emphasizing balance society's (which served refusing recognize vigorous adversary waivers). better struck intended. correct matter enough talk (unless refusal overloads capacity trials) desperate forgo option fear compromising fail). score beside point; endorses Touche Ross Redington, 442 560, 578, 2479, 2490, 61 (1979) ultimate intent, thinks improve upon scheme law"). 39 unlikelihood modest sees looms larger position pursued. rules, little chance applied all. Already, standard forms indicate require Pet. Cert. 10-11. Stevens, 935 1380, 1396 (CA3 ("Plea commonly stating proffer disclosed impeachment"). oral argument, challenge demands waivers, contracts adhesion become practice.1 Today's speed heretofore illegitimate swallowing Guidry Sheet Metal Workers Nat. Pension Fund, 493 365, 377, 110 680, 687-688, 782 (1990) (no too "carve swallow rule"); Powell, 469 57, 68, 105 471, 478-479, 83 461 (1984) (respondent's Dunn "threatens rule"). 121-122, 7.3 (1994 pocket part) strange endorsed announcing office 'waive' 410"). until letters. 40 second likely emerge today's practical certainty demanded come itself. (if all) employed impeachment.2 erosion begun trickle, majority's reasoning principled limit draw distinction Government's chief. use, demand former just latter. does, legitimately construing theory Once point passed, today, Constitution independently impose traffic bear. Just bear question, sanctions scope gives unable acknowledge desire furnishing himself there. cases, reached reduced fantasy. damage restrained walk naked plea. defies result, said compromise. syllabus constitutes prepared Reporter Decisions convenience reader. Detroit Lumber Co., 200 321, 337, 282, 287, 50 499. "admissible (i) it, (ii) perjury oath, record presence counsel." Accord, goes lengths proposition case: blanket "impeachment" exception. impeached relinquish agreement. unlike typical stipulation, progress, extrajudicial outside litigation. 39. While litigation trigger closer scrutiny within litigation, 206 (1977), here. aimed resolving progress" relied (1945), distinguishable regard. entitlements guaranteed employees Fair Labor Act structure evinced "legislative "prevent[ing] contracts" matters. 706, 902. identified preventing bargaining; fact, above adopt view. dissent's policies animosity always justification yet exclusion; mean approach, wholesale Hearsay, excluded tends lack "trustworthiness," Article VIII Evid., 770, concedes "waivable question," post, existence sound rejecting failed empirical support apocalyptic predictions, data compiled Administrative Office contradict them. (when, according Solicitor General, invalidated below, 10-11), 92.2% convictions secured contendere. Annual Report Director, Courts, Judicial Business Table D-7, 278 period, 88.8% pleas. 276. still works practice Court's intent. believes currently petition change TVA Hill, 437 194, 2279, 2301-2302, 57 117 ("Our appraisal wisdom unwisdom particular consciously selected put statute"). Waiver broadly. For witnesses chosen testify. 1069 1993), cert. pending sub nom. Suess 93-7218 ("[J]ust choose protect taking stand, determining lines questioning pursue witnesses").

Category: 0