Court Opinion

ID: 9468385
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 02:13:37.312824+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:40:50.848899
License: Public Domain

REAVLEY, Circuit Judge, with whom GARZA, POLITZ and SAM D. JOHNSON, Circuit Judges, join,
dissenting:
The disposition of the case at this juncture should depend upon whether the position of the United States Attorney and the Department of Justice on the dismissal of these indictments has changed since first presented to the district court. At that point the motions for dismissal were clearly what the district judge said they were: “a camouflaged attempt to limit the ‘sentencing authority reserved _ to the judge.’ ” United States v. Butler, 486 F.Supp. 1285, 1294-95 (E.D.Tex.1980). The Government had not decided that the prosecutions should be terminated; the decision was that certain sentences should be assessed and that, if the court disagreed, it would be necessary — because of promises made to the defendants — to dismiss rather than to allow the court to give the harsher sentences. The trial court denied the motions under those circumstances — and properly so, in my opinion.
The majority hold otherwise. In the course of that holding, they have not read the record as I read it, or as the trial judge saw it. But the majority state another ground for their judgment: they say that the decision of the Government at the time of the appeal is that the prosecutions should be terminated whatever sentences would otherwise be assessed, and, if the defendants were permitted to withdraw their guilty pleas, the Government would move to dismiss and not proceed with the prosecution. 659 F.2d at 626-627. If that is now the decision of the Government, I would join in the dismissal. The Government has not said this in its briefs, however, and “indications” at oral argument are not quite enough for me. It would seem that this simple question could be resolved and, possibly, needless writing and ruling avoided, but that has been denied us. I therefore-return to the ruling of the trial judge on the facts that were presented to him.

Facts Before the District Court

The agreements that Mr. Baugh, the Assistant United States Attorney, had with the defendants were for a certain sentence.1 At least three defendants, Washington, Butler, and Evans were told and retold, falsely,2 that the district judge had agreed *635to that certain sentence. All defendants apparently were assured “that action had been taken to bind the sentencing judge to honor the agreement[s].”3 Baugh added that if the sentencing judge refused to hon- or the agreements, the Government would dismiss the indictments.4
The Government made no motion, and indicated no wish, to dismiss these indictments until February 29, 1980, when the district judge indicated that he would not follow Baugh’s sentencing recommendations. The factors that the majority give to justify the Government’s dismissal — past and future cooperation by these appellants — were actually the reasons why the prosecutor thought the sentences should be lower than the district judge, thought they should be. During February of 1980, when all of these factors were well known to Baugh, he was still firm on those sentences when talking to defense counsel. The motion to dismiss came only when the district judge said that he would do the sentencing and would not follow Baugh’s recommendations. Baugh then promptly filed motions to dismiss the indictments. In the motion to dismiss the indictment against defendants Butler, Evans, Fuller, and Washington, Baugh argued “[t]hat the Court has indicated its refusal to follow the recommendation of the United States Attorney’s Office.”5 In support of the Government’s motion to dismiss the. indictment against defendant Hamm, Baugh argued that the “Court . . . indicated ... a reluctance to honor and abide by the recommendation of the Assistant U.S. Attorney.”6
There was the question before the district judge, plain and simple: After a plea of guilty has been received — no promises having been made to the defendant upon the sentence at the time the district judge accepted the plea — may the Govérnment dismiss an indictment because the judge will not “honor and abide” by the recommended sentence of the Assistant United States Attorney?

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a) 

7

When the United States Attorney moves to dismiss an indictment against a defend*636ant, Rule 48(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure requires the prosecutor to obtain “leave of court.” Fed.R.Crim.P. 48(a). The original intent of the draftsmen in including the “leave of court” requirement has been lost.8 The judicial gloss that covers the phrase, however, is clear: the district judge may deny the Government’s motion to dismiss if the prosecutor is motivated by considerations that are clearly contrary to the public interest.
We first set out this interpretation in United States v. Cowan, 524 F.2d 504 (5th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 971, 96 S.Ct. 2168, 48 L.Ed.2d 795 (1976). In Cow-an, we recognized that Rule 48(a) contemplated maintaining the delicate balance of power between the Judiciary and the Executive. The Executive was “to take care that the laws are faithfully executed.” 524 F.2d at 513. The Judiciary was to “protect[] the public interest in the evenhanded administration of criminal justice.” Id. at 512. Thus, while we acknowledged that the “Executive . .. [was] the best judge of whether a . .. prosecution should be terminated,” the Judiciary could deny leave if the dismissal were “clearly contrary to manifest public interest.” Id. at 513.
We reaffirmed our construction of the leave of court requirement in Rule 48(a) one year later. See In re Washington, 544 F.2d 203, 208-09 (5th Cir. 1976) (en banc), rev’d on other grounds sub nom. Rinaldi v. United States, 434 U.S. 22, 98 S.Ct. 81, 54 L.Ed.2d 207 (1977). Other United States courts have also interpreted Rule 48(a) to allow the judge to deny leave if the motion to dismiss is not in the public interest. See, e. g., United States v. Ammidown, 497 F.2d 615, 622 (D.C.Cir.1973) (“authority has been granted to the judge to assure protection of the public interest”); United States v. Hastings, 447 F.Supp. 534, 537 (E.D.Ark.1977) (“dismissal is warranted if the Court is satisfied that the reasons advanced for dismissal . . . are compatible with the public interest”); United States v. N.V. Nederlandsche Combinatie Voor Chemische Industrie, 75 F.R.D. 473, 474 (S.D.N.Y.1977) (“clearly contrary to manifest public interest”); United States v. Biddings, 416 F.Supp. 673, 675 (N.D.Ill.1976) (“manifest public interest”); United States v. Greater Blouse, Skirt & Neckwear Contractors Assoc., 228 F.Supp. 483, 486 (S.D.N.Y.1964) (“public interest”); United States v. Shanahan, 168 F.Supp. 225, 227 (S.D.Ind.1958). See also Rinaldi v. United States, 434 U.S. 22, 29 n.15, 98 S.Ct. 81, 85 n.15, 54 L.Ed.2d 207 (1977) (“the Rule has also been held to permit the court to deny a Government dismissal motion ... if the motion is prompted by considerations clearly contrary to the public interest”). See generally An-not., When Is Federal Court Justified, Under Rule 48(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, in Denying Government Leave to Dismiss Criminal Charges, 48 A.L.R.Fed. 635, 642-43 (1980).
The Supreme Court of the United States applied the “leave of court” requirement of Rule 48(a) in Rinaldi v. United States, 434 U.S. 22, 98 S.Ct. 81, 54 L.Ed.2d 207 (1977). In Rinaldi the Government had moved in the district court to dismiss an indictment against a defendant who had been convicted and sentenced for a hotel robbery in both the Florida and the United States courts. The Government argued that its Petite policy,9 which protects a defendant from successive prosecutions in state and federal courts unless authorized by an Assistant Attorney General, had been violated. Both the district court and we denied relief on the ground that the Government had acted in bad faith and contrary to the public interest by previously representing to the district judge that the federal prosecution had been authorized. See id., 434 U.S. at 23-26, 98 S.Ct. at 82-83.
*637On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed. According to the Court,
[t]he . . . issue, however, [was] not whether the decision to maintain the federal prosecution was made in bad faith but rather whether the Government’s later efforts to terminate the prosecution were similarly tainted with impropriety.
Id., 434 U.S. at 30, 98 S.Ct. at 85. After an examination of the record, the Court concluded that “[t]he decision to terminate this prosecution, based as it was on the Petite policy, was motivated by considerations which cannot fairly be characterized as ‘clearly contrary to manifest public interest.’ ” Id. (quoting United States v. Cowan, 524 F.2d at 513).

The District Judge’s Finding and Conclusion

In Cowan we held that our review of a district judge’s conclusion that the dismissal of an indictment is contrary to the public interest was subject to “a closer scrutiny than in the ordinary case.” 524 F.2d at 513. Thus, “[i)f upon appraisal of all the relevant factors, [we have] a definite and firm conviction that the trial court committed a clear error of judgment in the conclusion it reached, the judgment must be reversed.” Id. We also have held that the clearly erroneous standard governs our review of a district judge’s findings of fact on a defendant’s motion to dismiss an indictment,10 e. g., United States v. Bright, 630 F.2d 804, 811 (5th Cir. 1980); United States v. Luttrell, 609 F.2d 1190, 1192 (5th Cir. 1980); United States v. Cathey, 591 F.2d 268, 272 (5th Cir. 1979), and in other collateral criminal proceedings, see, e. g., United States v. Smith, 649 F.2d 305, 309 (5th Cir. 1981) (motion to suppress contraband seized during search); United States v. Quigley, 631 F.2d 415, 416 (5th Cir. 1980) (finding of fact that prior plea bargain did not preclude later criminal proceeding by Government). The district judge’s finding that the purpose behind the Government’s motion to dismiss was to limit his sentencing authority is, therefore, tested under the clearly erroneous rule. His conclusion that the Government’s purpose was clearly contrary to the public interest is accorded “a closer scrutiny.” United States v. Cowan, 524 F.2d at 513.
The district judge expressly found that the Government’s motion to dismiss the indictments was “nothing more than a camouflaged attempt to limit the ‘sentencing authority reserved to the judge.’ ” 486 F.Supp. at 1294-95. His finding is fully supported by the record. That the Assistant United States Attorney, Baugh, moved to dismiss because he disagreed with the sentences that he anticipated that the district judge would dispense is clearly demonstrated in both of the motions he filed. In support of the Government’s motion to dismiss the indictment against defendants Butler, Evans, Fuller, and Washington, Baugh argued
[t]hat the Court has indicated its refusal to follow the recommendation of the United States Attorney’s Office at the proposed sentencing of LESTER WAL-LICK FULLER and CHARLES TALKINGTON.
Record on Appeal (80-1331), Vol. 1 at 79; id., Vol. 2 at 58; id, Vol. 3 at 75; id, Vol. 4 at 85. Similar language was included in his motion to dismiss the indictment against defendant Hamm.
That this Court has indicated, at the sentencing of the Defendant, LESTER WALLICK FULLER, a reluctance to honor and abide by the recommendation of the Assistant U.S. Attorney.
Record on Appeal (80-1315), Vol. 1 at 93. In arguing these motions to the district judge, Baugh suggested that the sentence to be assessed by the court was a factor that he considered important to his effort to induce others to enter into plea agreements with the United States Attorney’s Office. Record on Appeal (80-1331), Vol. 7 at 21. Moreover, in an affidavit filed subsequent to the oral hearing
*638Mr. Baugh agreed and stated that if the Court refused to follow the plea bargain agreement [for a six month sentence], that the defendant [Washington] should move to withdraw the plea. Mr. Baugh said that if the Court permitted the defendant to withdraw the plea, Mr. Baugh would dismiss the case and would not reprosecute the defendant.
Record on Appeal (80-1331), Vol. 4 at 119. In another affidavit, counsel for defendant Butler said that he
discussed with Mr. Baugh what action could be taken to insure that the agreement would be kept and we agreed that if the sentencing judge refused to honor the agreement Mr. Butler would be entitled to withdraw his plea of guilty, and that upon withdrawing the plea of guilty, the Government could and would move to dismiss the indictment pending against Mr. Butler.
Record on Appeal (80-1315), Vol. 1 at 142; Record on Appeal (80-1331), Vol. 1 at 145; id., Vol. 2 at 124; id., Vol. 3 at 141; id., Vol. 4 at 169. On this record, the district judge was surely justified in finding that the motivation behind the Government’s motion to dismiss was to rob him of his authority to sentence the defendants.11
Once the district judge found that the motivation behind the Government’s motions to dismiss was to deprive him of his sentencing authority, he properly could deny the motions because the Government’s actions were clearly contrary to manifest public interest. In the United States courts, the determination of the length of a defendant’s sentence is a function reserved to the district judge. We expressly recognized this precept in United States v. Bean, 564 F.2d 700 (5th Cir. 1977), when, in discussing a district judge’s refusal to accept a plea agreement that provided for the dismissal of the more severe of the two counts alleged in the indictment, we said that “the length of the sentence has almost always been a matter within the discretion of the district court.” Id. at 704; see also United States v. Adams, 634 F.2d 830, 835 (5th Cir. 1981) (district judge did not abuse her discretion in rejecting plea agreement when she believed that defendant would receive too light a sentence).
On other occasions in considering different circumstances, this and other United States courts have consistently reaffirmed that the authority to sentence a defendant is committed solely to the district judge. See, e. g., United States v. Del Toro, 426 F.2d 181, 184 (5th Cir. 1970) (“It is the function of the judge to impose sentence.”), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 829, 91 S.Ct. 58, 27 L.Ed.2d 60 (1970); United States v. Del Toro, 513 F.2d 656, 666 (2d Cir. 1975) (“It is commonplace that punishment is for the court .... ”), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 826, 96 S.Ct. 41, 46 L.Ed.2d 42 (1975); Walters v. Harris, 460 F.2d 988, 991-92 (4th Cir. 1972) (“Sentencing . . . was within the authority of no one but the trial judge.”), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1129, 93 S.Ct. 947, 35 L.Ed.2d 262 (1973); United States v. Coke, 404 F.2d 836, 845 (2d Cir. 1968) (en banc) (“sentencing is normally within the discretion of the trial judge”); Owens v. United States, 383 F.Supp. 780, 784 (M.D.Pa.1974) (“The long-established authority in the United States is that the sentencing function is vested exclusively in the trial court.”), aff’d, 515 F.2d 507 (3d Cir. 1975) (table), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 996, 96 S.Ct. 425, 46 L.Ed.2d 371 (1975). It follows that at sentencing the role of the prosecutor, the United States Attorney, is limited to making a recommendation — a recommendation that is not binding on the judge. “[T]he trial court is not to be bound by any pre-trial representations made by a prosecuting officer with respect to . . . possible sentences.” Clemons v. United States, 137 F.2d 302, 305 (4th Cir. 1943).
Therefore, a motion by the Government to dismiss an indictment that is inspired by the district judge’s refusal to assess the sentence recommended by the United *639States Attorney’s Office may be denied to “protect[] .. . the sentencing authority reserved to the judge.”. United States v. Ammidown, 497 F.2d 615, 622 (D.C.Cir.1973).
Another Rinaldi?
The majority erect the Supreme Court’s decision in Rinaldi v. United States, 434 U.S. 22, 98 S.Ct. 81, 54 L.Ed.2d 207 (1977), as an insuperable barrier. '659 F.2d at 629-630. Yet, the considerations before the Supreme Court of the United States in Rinaldi were vastly different from those facing the district judge in the instant case. In Rinaldi, the Government sought to implement its Petite policy. The Petite policy, as promulgated by the Department of Justice, “precludes the initiation or continuation of a federal prosecution following a state prosecution based on substantially the same act or acts unless there is a compelling federal interest supporting the dual prosecution.” United States Attorney’s Manual § 9-2.142 (1980), reprinted in Annot., 51 A.L.R.Fed. 852, 853-54 (1981).12 Although the Supreme Court has not found that this policy is constitutionally compelled,13 it “is much more than a departmental policy in the usual sense.” United States v. Thompson, 579 F.2d 1184, 1190 (10th Cir. 1978) (en banc) (Seth, C. J., dissenting), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 896, 99 S.Ct. 257, 58 L.Ed.2d 243 (1978). Through its effective implementation, the policy shields the citizen from successive state and federal prosecutions for the same act, which, but for the concept of dual sovereignty inherent in our federal system, ordinarily would be encompassed by the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. Indeed, as the Supreme Court recognized in Rinaldi, “the [Petite] policy represents the Government’s response to repeated expressions of concern by Members of this Court,” 434 U.S. at 27, 98 S.Ct. at 85, and “the federal courts should be receptive, not circumspect, when the Government seeks leave to implement that policy,” id. at 29, 98 S.Ct. at 85.
Moreover, unlike the facts in Rinaldi, in which “[t]he decision to terminate th[e] prosecution . . . was motivated by considerations which cannot fairly be characterized as ‘clearly contrary to the manifest public interest,’ ” id. at 30, 98 S.Ct. at 85, the decision to dismiss the indictments in this case was, as the cold record unmistakably reveals, based on the district judge’s refusal to follow the sentencing recommendations of the prosecutor. A dismissal based on the prosecutor’s disagreement with the district judge over the length of the sentence to be imposed can never be in the public interest. United States v. Ammidown, 497 F.2d 615, 622 (D.C. Cir. 1973).

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(d)

The mandatory requirement under Rule 11(e)(4) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure that the defendants be afforded an opportunity to withdraw their guilty pleas is inapplicable, because these defendants pleaded guilty without any agreement upon a specific sentence.14 Nevertheless, the district judge should have allowed defendants Butler, Evans, and Washington to withdraw their pleas of guilty. Moreover, the record indicates the likelihood that the *640district judge abused his discretion in denying the motions of the other defendants to withdraw their guilty pleas.
Rule 32(d) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides:
A motion to withdraw a plea of guilty or of nolo contendere may be made only before sentence is imposed or imposition of sentence is suspended; but to correct manifest injustice the court after sentence may set aside the judgment of conviction and permit the defendant to withdraw his plea.
Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(d). This court construed Rule 32(d) in United States v. Presley, 478 F.2d 163 (5th Cir. 1973). There we stated:
This rule does not confer an absolute right to withdraw a plea of guilty or nolo contendere before the imposition of sentence, but leaves to the sound discretion of the trial judge the decision whether a defendant has met his burden of showing adequate cause for permitting withdrawal of the plea .... We have adhered nonetheless to the general principle that Rule 32(d) should be construed liberally in favor of the accused when a motion is made to withdraw before sentence is imposed. The right of jury trial is involved and that right has long held a favored place in our law.
Id. at 166-67 (citations omitted).
Because of the agreement with the Government on a certain sentence, and the false assurance by the Government that the district judge had been informed and had consented,15 defendants Butler, Evans, and Washington cooperated in an important trial at their peril. They should not be treated now as if there had been no misconduct by the Government. They were entitled to rely upon the statements of fact made by the Government. Having done so at a substantial price to themselves, the district judge should have elected to treat them in the same manner as if their sentence had been incorporated in the original plea agreement. Butler, Evans, and Washington should have been permitted to withdraw their pleas of guilty when the district judge indicated his refusal to assess the sentences they understood that they would receive. The district judge abused his discretion by not allowing them to do so.
Unlike defendants Butler, Evans, and Washington, the record does not clearly demonstrate that defendants Fuller and Hamm understood that the district judge had consented to the sentences recommended by the Government. The record does show, however, that the Government had assured these defendants that either they would enjoy those sentences or the Government would dismiss the indictments against them.16 Moreover, each of these defendants apparently was under the impression that the Government had taken steps that would “bind the sentencing judge to honor the agreements.” Like Butler, Evans, and Washington, these defendants also had cooperated with the Government in an important trial and were entitled to rely on the statements of the Government. They, too, did so at a substantial price to themselves. Because it is unclear whether the district judge considered our interpretation of Rule 32(d) in denying the motions of these defendants to withdraw their guilty pleas, I would remand for further consideration by the district judge.
Therefore, I would hold that it was an abuse of discretion to deny the motions of defendants Butler, Evans, and Washington to withdraw their guilty pleas. I would also remand to the district court to reconsider the other motions to withdraw guilty pleas.17

Conclusion

Unlike us, the district judge was there. From his unique perspective he found that *641the purpose behind the Government’s motions to dismiss the indictments was to interfere with his sentencing authority. He concluded that this was contrary to the public interest. Both the record18 and the law support his holdings. I would vacate the convictions of the defendants. I would remand to the district court with instructions to grant the motions of defendants Evans and Washington to withdraw their guilty pleas and to reconsider the motion of defendant Hamm to withdraw his plea in light of our decision in United States v. Presley.

. The majority classify the agreements that were concluded between Baugh and defendants Butler, Fuller, Evans, Hamm, and Washington subsequent to each defendant pleading guilty as “agreements under Rule 11(e).” 659 F.2d at 626. The district judge held that a plea agreement between a United States Attorney and a defendant subsequent to a plea of guilty “is not a valid Rule 11(e) plea agreement.” United States v. Butler, 486 F.Supp. 1285, 1295 (E.D.Tex.1980). I agree with the district judge.

. Baugh signed a stipulation under oath that he told Washington’s attorney that the district judge had approved their agreement and that the six months jail time was secure. Record on Appeal (80-1331), Vol. 4 at 117-19. An offer of proof signed by counsel for defendants Butler and Evans incorporated the stipulation
as reflecting the sequence of events and details of negotiations had relative to the defendants [Butler and Evans] with the observation that the only substantial differences between such stipulation and what the defendants will prove is that the conversations had relative to the defendants occurred with the defendants and/or their counsel, not with Larry Washington and/or his counsel, and that the dates recited in the stipulation are accurate within seven days relative to the defendants.
Record on Appeal (80-1331), Vol. 1 at 98; id., Vol. 2 at 78. The district judge stated that he learned of this agreement on February 29, 1980 for the first time and had never agreed to it. 486 F.Supp. at 1292. How, then, does this court solemnly write: “It thus seems possible that in the prosecutor’s zeal .... he may have misled at least one of the defense attorneys”? 659 F.2d at 627. It does not “seem possible” that an attorney “may have [been] misled.” Baugh perpetrated an outright falsehood and he did so more than once.

. Record on Appeal (80-1315), Vol. 1 at 141 (affidavit of counsel for defendant Butler); Record on Appeal (80-1331), Vol. 1 at 144 (same); id., Vol. 2 at 123 (same); id., Vol. 3 at 140 (same); id., Vol. 4 at 168 (same).
Unlike defendants Butler, Evans, and Washington, who were told that the district judge had consented to a certain sentence, see note 2, supra, the record is unclear whether defendants Hamm and Fuller were told by Baugh that the district judge had agreed to a specific sentence. At most, the record shows that defendant Hamm understood that the United States Attorney’s Office had the authority to agree to specific sentences subsequent to the entry of a guilty plea. See Record on Appeal (80-1315), Vol. 4 at 35-38. Defendant Fuller was led to believe that the district judge “would approve the Plea Agreement.” See Record on Appeal (80-1331), Vol. 3 at 87-88.

. The majority “emphasize[ ]” that the prosecutor did not enter into “any agreement with the appellants to dismiss the charges if the judge did not abide by the sentencing agreement.” 659 F.2d at 630. To the contrary, that is exactly what the prosecutor did.
In a stipulation signed under oath, Baugh stated that if the court refused to follow the plea agreement between the Government and defendant Washington, Washington should move to withdraw his plea and “Baugh would dismiss the case and would not reprosecute” Washington. Record on Appeal (80-1331), Vol. 4 at 119. According to their counsel, Baugh made this same agreement with defendants Butler and Evans. Record on Appeal (80-1331), Vol. 1 at 98; id., Vol. 2 at 78. An affidavit signed by counsel for defendant Butler states that “if the sentencing judge refused to honor the agreement Mr. Butler would be entitled to withdraw his plea of guilty, and upon withdrawing the plea of guilty, the Government could and would move to dismiss the indictment pending against Mr. Butler.” Record on Appeal (80-1331), Vol. 1 at 145. As this affidavit was included as part of the record in the appeal of each of the defendants, Record on Appeal (80-1315), Vol. 1 at 142; Record on Appeal (80-1331), Vol. 1 at 145; id., Vol. 2 at 124; id., Vol. 3 at 141; id., Vol. 4 at 169, a similar agreement to dismiss may have existed for defendants Fuller and Hamm as well.

. Record on Appeal (80-1331), Vol. 1 at 79; id., Vol. 2 at 58; id., Vol. 3 at 75; id., Vol. 4 at 85.

. Record on Appeal (80-1315), Vol. 1 at 93.

. Rule 48(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides:
The Attorney General or the United States attorney may by leave of court file a dismiss*636al of an indictment, information or complaint and the prosecution shall thereupon terminate. Such a dismissal may not be filed during the trial without the consent of the defendant.
Fed.R.Crim.P. 48(a).

. See Rinaldi v. United States, 434 U.S. 22, 29 n.15, 98 S.Ct. 81, 85 n.15, 54 L.Ed.2d 207 (1977).

. See notes 12-13 and accompanying text, infra, for a discussion of the Petite policy.

. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12(b)(2) provides a mechanism for a defendant to seek dismissal of an indictment.

. The majority report that they “find no evidence that the prosecutor was motivated by any consideration other than his evaluation of the public interest.” 659 F.2d at 630. I find that the prosecutor took no thought of a “public interest” question until his plans for sentences had been blocked and he had to argue motions to dismiss.

. For a brief history of the Petite policy see Annot., Effect on Federal Criminal Prosecution or Conviction of Prosecutor’s Noncompliance with Petite Policy Requiring Prior Authorization of Attorney General for Federal Trial Where Accused Has Been Previously Prosecuted for Same Acts in State Court, 51 A.L.R. Fed. 852, 853-58 (1981).

. Under current Supreme Court jurisprudence, the concept of dual sovereignty allows a state to prosecute an individual for a crime for which he already has stood trial in federal court, see Bartkus v. Illinois, 359 U.S. 121, 79 S.Ct. 676, 3 L.Ed.2d 684 (1959), and the United States to prosecute an individual for a crime for which he already has stood trial in a state court, see Abbate v. United States, 359 U.S. 187, 79 S.Ct. 666, 3 L.Ed.2d 729 (1950). See generally Note, The Problem of Double Jeopardy in Successive Federal-State Prosecutions: A Fifth Amendment Solution, 31 Stan.L.Rev. 477, 477—496 (1979); Note, The Continued Validity of Successive Prosecutions by State and Federal Governments for the Same Criminal Conduct, 44 Wake Forest L.Rev. 823 (1978); An-not., Acquittal or Conviction in State Court as Bar to Federal Prosecution Based on Same Act or Transaction, 18 A.L.R.Fed. 393 (1974).

. See note 1, supra.

. See notes 2 & 3, supra.

. See note 3, supra.

. I, of course, agree with the majority that because defendants Butler and Fuller have died prior to our resolution of their appeals, their convictions must be vacated. 659 F.2d 633 n. 26.

. The liberties enjoyed by the majority in their ■ interpretation of the record in these appeals are disturbing.
There is no reason for the majority to intimate “that the trial judge indirectly learned about the sentencing agreements when the appellants were cross-examined at the trials of the conspiracy leaders.” 659 F.2d at 627 n. 9. In his opinion, Judge Fisher stated that “up until the sentencing of Fuller .... the Court was unaware of any agreement to limit a maximum sentence to six months.” 486 F.Supp. at 1292. The word of a United States district judge is good enough for me. I would think that it would be good enough for the majority.
Nor is there any justification for this court to question Judge Fisher’s statement “that he was ‘misled’ on February 29 into believing that [defendant Fuller’s] sentencing agreement existed prior to the guilty plea and that he subsequently learned that the sentence agreement was not negotiated until after the plea.” 659 F.2d at 627 n. 10. The majority’s hollow explanation for their conclusion is that “[njothing in the transcript of February 29 supports the impression that defense counsel intentionally misled the court, . . . [and that] Fuller filed a Notice of Plea Agreement with the court on February 29 before the sentencing proceeding.” Id.
Judge Fisher neither said nor suggested that any of defense counsel intentionally misled him. What he did say, as explained in his opinion, was that
[i]n chambers prior to the sentencing, the Court understood counsel for defendant Fuller to represent that at the time defendant Fuller pleaded guilty, the underlying plea agreement had contained a provision whereby the United States Attorney’s Office would recommend a sentence which would include no more than six months incarceration.
486 F.Supp. at 1291 (emphasis added).
The transcript of Fuller’s subsequent sentencing hearing provides no clarification on this question. Rather, it seems to reflect an attempt to further Judge Fisher’s belief that the sentencing agreement existed at the time Fuller entered his guilty plea. When Judge Fisher asked the prosecutor whether the agreement for a maximum sentence was brought to his attention at the time defendant Fuller entered his plea, the prosecutor’s response was that there was an agreement to recommend only six months imprisonment, but that he was unsure whether it had been brought to the court’s attention then.
THE COURT: Whatever the agreement was, the Court will inquire, was it brought to the Court’s attention at the time that the Defendant entered a plea of “Guilty”?
MR. BAUGH: I don’t recollect exactly, Your Honor, I believe Mr. Radford is filing a Motion, which states, without objection to the United States, that there was a plea bargain agreement which stated that the United States would recommend not more than six months imprisonment and receive no more than five years punishment. I believe this was — I do not recollect whether this was called to the Court’s attention at that time, or not.
Record on Appeal (80-1331), Vol. 6 at 27. The majority’s conclusion that Fuller filed a copy of his plea agreement with the court on February 29 before the hearing began also is equally unsupported. The Notice of Plea Agreement was stamped “FILED” by Judge Fisher’s courtroom deputy. Because no other papers were filed by counsel for defendant Fuller on February 29, the Notice of Plea Agreement must have been the “Motion” counsel “just filed” during the hearing and then asked Judge Fisher to review. Record on Appeal (80-1331), Vol. 6 at 28.
Judge Fisher eventually saw through the wavering responses and the flurry of motions to see that the agreements for sentence recommendations for defendants Butler, Evans, Fuller, Hamm, and Washington were reached subsequent to initial guilty pleas. 486 F.Supp. at 1290-93. We have no reason to question his word that, when the prosecutor and counsel for defendant Fuller first sprung this highly unusual procedure on him, he was “misled.”