Legal Document

536 U.S. 622 UNITED STATESv.RUIZ. No. 01-595. Supreme Court of the United States. Argued April 24, 2002. Decided June CERTIORARI TO THE STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR NINTH CIRCUIT After immigration agents found marijuana in respondent Ruiz's luggage, federal prosecutors offered her a "fast track" plea bargain, whereby she would waive indictment, trial, and an appeal exchange for reduced sentence recommendation. Among other things, prosecutors' standard agreement acknowledges Government's continuing duty to turn over information establishing defendant's factual innocence, but requires that right receive impeachment relating any informants or witnesses, as well supporting affirmative defense raises if case goes trial. Because Ruiz not agree latter waiver, withdrew their bargaining offer, was indicted unlawful drug possession. Despite absence agreement, ultimately pleaded guilty. At sentencing, asked judge grant same Government have recommended had accepted bargain. The opposed request, District denied it. In vacating sentence, Ninth Circuit took jurisdiction under 18 U. S. C. § 3742; noted Constitution make certain available defendant before trial; decided this obligation entitles defendants they enter into agreement; ruled prohibits from waiving information; held because it insisted upon such waiver. Held: 1. Appellate proper 3742(a)(1), which permits appellate review "imposed violation law." Respondent's been so imposed constitutional claim were sound. Thus, prevailed on merits, victory also confirmed Circuit's jurisdiction. Although concludes respondent's law" therefore 3742(a)(1) does authorize kind, is familiar law court always has determine its own See States v. Mine Workers, 330 258, 291. order determination, necessary address merits. Pp. 626-628. 2. require disclose material evidence prior entering with criminal defendant. Fifth Sixth Amendments provide, part Constitution's "fair trial" guarantee, exculpatory prosecutors, see, e. g., Brady Maryland, 373 83, 87, who pleads guilty forgoes fair trial various accompanying guarantees, Boykin Alabama, 395 238, 243. As result, insists "voluntary" related waivers "knowing[ly], intelligent[ly], [and] sufficient awareness relevant circumstances likely consequences." See, id., at 242. effect (and could not, by pleading guilty, his trial) unless first made disclosure Several considerations, taken together, demonstrate holding's error. First, special relation trial's fairness, respect whether voluntary. It particularly difficult characterize critical, given random way may, may help particular degree will depend independent knowledge prosecution's potential — matter disclose. Second, there no legal authority provides significant support decision. To contrary, Constitution, circumstances, complete knowledge, accept plea, waiver rights, despite forms misapprehension might labor. States, 397 742, 757. Third, very due process considerations led find trial-related rights nature private interest stake, value additional safeguard, requirement's adverse impact interests, Ake Oklahoma, 470 68, 77 argue against existence "right" found. Here, right's added often limited, provide innocence proposed guilty-plea safeguards, see Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 11. Moreover, rule seriously interfere securing pleas disrupting ongoing investigations exposing prospective witnesses serious intimidation harm, thereby forcing modify current practice, devote substantially more resources preplea preparation, abandon heavy reliance bargaining. Due cannot demand radical change achieve comparatively small benefit. 628-633. 3. information, believe, most foregoing reasons, provision P. 633. 241 F. 3d 1157, reversed. BREYER, J., delivered opinion Court, REHNQUIST, STEVENS, O'CONNOR, SCALIA, KENNEDY, SOUTER, GINSBURG, JJ., joined. THOMAS, filed concurring judgment, post, p. Solicitor General Olson argued cause With him brief Assistant Attorney Chertoff, Deputy Dreeben, Irving L. Gornstein, Jonathan Marcus. Steven Hubachek, appointment 534 1126, respondent. Benjamin Coleman.* JUSTICE BREYER Court. 1 we primarily consider binding defendant, "impeachment witnesses." App. Pet. Cert. 46a. We hold disclosure. 2 * 30 kilograms Angela what known Southern California That bargain district asks appeal. return, agrees recommend sentencing two-level departure downward otherwise applicable Sentencing Guidelines sentence. case, shortened ordinary Guidelines-specified 18-to-24-month range 6 months, 12-to-18 months. 1161 (2001). 3 contains set detailed terms. specifies "any [known] defendant" "has turned defendant," "continuing information." 45a-46a. time "waiv[e] right" witnesses" Id., last-mentioned offer. then And 4 agreement. it, imposing Guideline instead. 3d, 1161. 5 Relying 3742, infra, 627, 628-629, appealed Appeals Circuit. vacated Court's determination. pointed out 1166. 1164. information. 1165-1166. 1167. remanded decide disputes appropriate remedy. 1169. sought certiorari. stressed considered practical implications holding. holding unique among courts appeals. 8. granted petition. 1074 (2002). II 7 outset, note question statutory potentially blocks our consideration statute says "defendant file notice ... 8 "(1) law; 9 "(2) result incorrect application guidelines; 10 "(3) greater than [the Guideline] specified [sentence]...; 11 "(4) offense guideline plainly unreasonable." 3742(a). 12 Every where ground consists abused discretion refusing depart. Conway, 81 15, 16 (CA1 1996); Lawal, 17 560, 562 (CA2 1994); Powell, 269 175, 179 (CA3 2001); Ivester, 75 182, 183 (CA4 Cooper, 274 230, 248 (CA5 Scott, 74 107, 112 (CA6 Byrd, 263 705, 707 (CA7 Mora-Higuera, 905, 913 (CA8 Garcia-Garcia, 927 2d 489, 490 (CA9 1991); Coddington, 118 1439, 1441 (CA10 1997); Calderon, 127 1314, 1342 (CA11 re Sealed Case 98-3116, 199 488, 491-492 (CADC 1999). 13 does, however, "was Two quite different theories pursuant provision. recognized, decision rested mistaken belief lacked power departure, quoted apply. 1162, n. Our reading record, convinces us Judge correctly understood he exercise reject basis finding claim, discussed Part III, sound, Appeals. 14 conclude 291 (1947). proper. III 15 concerns basic guarantee. Const., Amdts. 5, 6. 87 (1963) (Due "avoi[d] unfair making "upon request" "favorable accused either guilt punishment"); Agurs, 427 97, 112-113 (1976) (defense request unnecessary); Kyles Whitley, 514 419, 435 (1995) (exculpatory suppression "undermine confidence verdict"); Giglio 405 150, 154 (1972) includes "evidence affecting" witness "credibility," witness' "reliability" "determinative innocence"). When she, course, only guarantees. 243 (1969) (pleading implicates Amendment privilege self-incrimination, confront one's accusers, jury). Given seriousness matter, insists, must 748 (1970); Boykin, supra, preguilty not. fairness voluntary ("knowing," "intelligent," "sufficient[ly] aware"). Of has, aware consequences decision, wiser be. But prosecutor share all useful Weatherford Bursey, 429 545, 559 (1977) ("There general discovery case"). ordinarily considers knowing, intelligent, sufficiently fully understands how apply even though know specific invoking A example, remain silent, jury counsel questions authorities intend ask, serve jury, lawyer State provide. Cf. Colorado Spring, 479 564, 573-575 (1987) (Fifth self-incrimination waived when received Miranda warnings regarding told interrogation be asked). 19 critical can 20 embodied past cases circuits S., 757 (defendant "misapprehended quality State's case"); ibid. misapprehended "the penalties"); failed "anticipate" "punishments"); McMann Richardson, 759, 770 (1970) (counsel "misjudged admissibility" "confession"); Broce, 488 563, 573 (1989) point defense); Tollett Henderson, 411 267 (1973) infirmity grand proceedings). distinguish, terms importance, (1) ignorance grounds possible future (2) varying issue these cases. 21 Giglio, here. This said include (3) requirement interests. (1985). just out, depends details case. here specifies, regardless. fact, along 11, diminishes force concern that, innocent individuals, crimes, plead McCarthy 394 459, 465-467 (discussing 11's role protecting rights). 22 time, during bargaining, entry those are factually justified, desired defendants, secure efficient administration justice. risks premature which, tells us, "disrupt investigations" expose harm. Brief 25. Federal Rules Criminal Procedure: Hearings Subcommittee Justice House Committee Judiciary, 94th Cong., 1st Sess., 92 (1975) (statement John Keeney, Acting General, Div., Dept. Justice) (opposing mandated three days documented instances intimidation). careful tailoring characterizes requirements suggests recognition both Congress Committees valid. 3432 (witness list required capital exceptions); 3500 (Government statements subject after testimony given); 16(a)(2) (embodies limitations 3500). Compare 156 R. D. 460, 461-462 (1994) (congressional proposal significantly broaden 3500) 167 221, 223, (judicial conference opposing congressional proposal). 23 Consequently, "general practice" "disclos[ing] reveal identities cooperating informants, undercover investigators, preparation depriving plea-bargaining main resource-saving advantages. Or lead instead vast number 90% say demands justice 24 These 25 addition, "affirmative defense" do believe (though all) reasons previously stated. say, context need closely voluntariness plea; limited; yet burden requiring advance (often begins) serious, interfering process. 26 For judgment 27 Reversed. Notes: ofamici curiae urging reversal Ohio et al. Betty Montgomery, Ohio, David M. Gormley, Solicitor, Stephen Carney, Associate Diane Welsh, Dan Schweitzer, Attorneys respective jurisdictions follows: Bill Pryor Bruce Botelho Alaska, Ken Salazar Colorado, Jane Delaware, Carla J. Stovall Kansas, Thomas Reilly Massachusetts, Mike Moore Mississippi, McGrath Montana, Don Stenberg Nebraska, Frankie Sue Del Papa Nevada, Eliot Spitzer New York, W. A. Drew Edmondson Hardy Myers Oregon, Michael Fisher Pennsylvania, Anabelle Rodriquez Puerto Rico, Paul G. Summers Tennessee, Mark Shurtleff Utah, William H. Sorrell Vermont, Hoke MacMillan Wyoming. T. Philipsborn Porter National Association Defense Lawyers amici curiae. 28 judgment. 29 I analysis turns some "degree help" stage, ante, 630, 631, distinction neither nor accurate. extent implicitly drawing line based flawed characterization about usefulness types concur principle "avoidance accused." (1963). implicated stage

Classification Label: 0