Court Opinion

ID: 9499681
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 17:55:08.00714+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:59:39.909154
License: Public Domain

BRIGHT, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I join Judge Bye and Judge Melloy in dissent.
I focus on the precise facts in this case, which, as Judge Bye states, raise a unique and troubling situation that has not previously come before this court. See Op. at 1056. Norris had performed his part of the plea agreement when the government voiced its reinterpretation of an essential term, effectively abandoning its promise to perform. See Op. at 1059-60. As Judge Melloy states, the Government gained an unfair advantage from Norris’s admission of guilt during the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 colloquy and has thus violated Norris’s right to due process. See Op. at 1060-62.
Accordingly, I agree with Judge Bye and Judge Melloy that, on the facts of this case, the government should be bound by its word and not allowed — without any good reason — to abandon its prior promise during the change-of-plea hearing.
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, “Men must turn square corners when they deal with the Government.” Rock Island, A. & L.R. Co. v. United States, 254 U.S. 141, 143, 41 S.Ct. 55, 65 L.Ed. 188 (1920). I agree. But the government, particularly in criminal cases that threaten to deprive a defendant of his liberty, must also turn square corners when dealing with its citizens. In this case, the government’s conduct was inexplicable and fell short of the fair treatment that is expected from a representative of the United States.
The government reneged on its word. That omission is chargeable to the United States Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Missouri and threatens to make the word of that office not worth the paper on which it is written. Fortunately for the country, I do not believe that federal prosecutors in other districts are in the mold of the Western District of Missouri.
Whether in criminal or civil litigation, or otherwise in the practice of law, a lawyer’s word ought to be his or her bond.