Court Opinion

ID: 9453357
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 18:10:55.575144+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:33:37.436671
License: Public Domain

KILEY, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
I dissent.
The principal issue in this case is whether Jackson was entitled to a hearing upon his request to withdraw his plea of guilty. Jackson was entitled to *135such a hearing unless at the time his attorney sought to withdraw Jackson’s plea of guilty the record of the case conclusively showed that the guilty plea was made intelligently and voluntarily without any belief that he had been promised leniency.1 It is not enough that it appear “improbable” that the plea was made involuntarily or unintelli gently since Jackson was entitled to a hearing unless a claim of involuntariness would have been “incredible.” See 8 Moore’s Federal Practice ft 32.07 [4]; Scott v. United States, (E.D.Ky.) 190 F. Supp. 470, aff’d 292 F.2d 49, cert. denied, (1961) 368 U.S. 879, 82 S.Ct. 128, 7 L.Ed.2d 79; Machibroda v. United States, 368 U.S. 487, 82 S.Ct. 510, 7 L.Ed.2d 473; United States v. Mainer, 383 F.2d 444 (3rd Cir. 1967).
A determination of whether Jackson’s guilty plea was voluntary and intelligent must by definition depend upon the court’s view of Jackson’s subjective state of mind at the time of plea. See United States ex rel. Thurmond v. Mancusi, 275 F.Supp. 508 (S.D.N.Y.1967). In determining the nature of Jackson’s plea all the surrounding circumstances must be considered. United States v. Miller, 243 F.Supp. 61 (E.D.Pa.1965), aff’d 356 F.2d 515 (3rd Cir.1966), cert. denied 384 U.S. 981, 86 S.Ct. 1882, 16 L.Ed.2d 691. The effect of statements made to him by his own lawyers and by the United States Attorney are relevant and the fact that the judge actually made no promise to him is not determinative of the issue as the opinion of the court indicates. See United States v. Lias, 173 F.2d 685 (4th Cir.1949); 8 Moore’s Federal Practice jf 1105 [4]; Shelton v. United States, 246 F.2d 571 (5th Cir.1957), rev’d on other grounds, 356 U.S. 26, 78 S.Ct. 563, 2 L.Ed.2d 579, Note, 64 Yale L.J. 590, 594-95; United States v. Schneer, 194 F.2d 598 (3rd Cir.1952); United States ex rel. Elksnis v. Gilligan, 256 F.Supp. 244, 249 (S.D.N.Y. 1966).
The circumstances of the present case reveal the need for a hearing to determine whether Jackson’s plea was a valid waiver of his constitutional rights. At his arraignment on February 15, 1966, Jackson was represented by counsel of his choice and entered a not guilty plea. On June 29, 1966, the day set for Jackson’s trial, there was a conference between Jackson’s two lawyers and the United States Attorney and thereafter the three lawyers met with the district court judge. Jackson’s attorneys then conferred with their client and thereafter asked for leave to withdraw his not guilty plea and enter a plea of guilty. The judge thereupon informed Jackson of his constitutional right to a jury trial, to be confronted with the witnesses against him, and to refuse to testify. Jackson stated that he understood the charges against him and the maximum penalty for the offense charged.
The following then took place:
The Court: Have any promises been made to you in order to induce you to change your plea?
The Defendant: Well, no — yes and no.
The Court: What do you mean “yes and no”?
The Defendant: Well, I did bring them over, I can’t deny that—
The Court: No, what I am asking now is, have any promises been made to you?
The Defendant: If I tell the truth, that I did bring them over, which I did, it might be easier with me — to tell the truth, and I did bring them over. And if I did not lie about it— and I did bring them.
The Court: Have you been made any promise of leniency?
The Defendant: That I may be let off easy — if I tell the truth, it is much easier, and to tell the truth.
The Court: I want to know, Mr. Jackson, — I have discussed this matter *136with your attorneys and I have made them no promises.
The Defendant: He didn’t tell me you made any promises.
The Court: Whether or not you get probation will depend on a lot of things which I do not yet know; but I am not making you any promises, nor have I made any promises.
The Defendant: No, he did not make anything like that at all.
The Court: No threats have been made against you in order to induce you to change your plea?
The Defendant: No, no threat.
The Court: Do I understand this plea of guilty is made voluntarily and understandingly by you ?
The Defendant: Yes, I talked it over back home with my wife and other friends and explained it to them, you know; and so that is that.
The Court: By this plea are you telling me you did transport these girls across the State line?
A. [sic] I did, and if they are here, it is just they are going to say I did, and it is two words against mine. So there is no use denying it.
The judge then accepted the plea of guilty and ordered a pre-sentence investigation report to be submitted. The sentencing hearing was held on August 5, 1966, and Jackson’s counsel moved for probation based on the investigation report. The judge then asked whether the government had a recommendation. An Assistant United States Attorney who had not been present on June 29 recommended a “severe penalty,” seeing no “great mitigation of circumstances.” The following then took place :
The Court: Mr. Jackson, will you stand.
John Kirby Jackson, do you have anything to say in your own behalf before the Court pronounces judgment upon you?
The Defendant: I don’t know what to say. I wasn’t doing this — well, what I did this for was a favor, really, out having a good time with the ladies so I brought them over. I never got a nickel or nothing like that. I never got money for nothing like that in my life.
The Court: Do you know any legal reason why the Court should not pronounce judgment upon you?
The Defendant: The only thing I can say, I come across the State Line with them, and I guess that proves it. I can prove that is not my living, I never thought nothing of it. As I said, it was a matter of knowing these people for two or three weeks, having a good time, and I guess I was tricked myself, really, I was stupid. That was what really happened, I never thought nothing like this would happen.
The judge orally summarized the government’s case and imposed a three to five year sentence.
At that point Jackson’s counsel stated that at the conference on June 29 the United States Attorney had said he would not oppose probation, and that the judge had indicated that if the probation investigation report came in as Jackson’s counsel stated it would, probation would probably be granted. The judge denied that he made any promise.2 Jackson’s counsel stated that he understood that the judge had promised probation; that he had so advised his client, and that his client’s plea had been made becaused of his belief in the existence of this promise.
The judge asked whether counsel wanted to set aside the plea and try the case. Counsel said he did. The judge discussed this with the United States Attorney and the denial of the motion to withdraw followed.
*137The discussion between the judge and Jackson’s attorney on the day of Jackson’s sentencing concluded with the following exchange:
The Court: Do you think I promised this man that he would get probation?
Jackson’s Attorney: That was my understanding, in the conference with myself, Mr. Shelly, the United States Attorney, this was my heart-felt understanding.
The Court: I never made such promise in my life, * * *
Motions to withdraw guilty pleas before sentence should be received with “great liberality,” and doubts then should be resolved in favor of withdrawal, and when it appears that a plea was entered under some mistake the accused should be permitted to withdraw it. Jones v. Eyman, 9 Cir., 353 F.2d 528; United States v. Davis, 7 Cir., 212 F.2d 264. But successful challenge of denial of motions after sentence requires a showing of “manifest injustice” as a result of the ruling. United States v. Parrino, 2 Cir., 212 F.2d 919; Rule 32(d), Fed.R.Crim.P. The record here persuades me that “manifest injustice” will result to Jackson if his plea is not vacated, and his allegations — that his plea was made because his lawyer had informed him that the judge and United States Attorney had promised him probation if his record was as he represented, or alternatively that the United States Attorney had promised to recommend probation and failed to do so — are true. 8 Moore’s Federal Practice if 1105 [4].
Jackson’s answers to the judge’s questions when the guilty plea was entered are somewhat ambiguous; and his statement of what he was “telling” the judge by his plea, viewed in conjunction with his statements prior to sentencing, indicates that while he did transport two girls from Illinois to Indiana, his main purposes in so doing were not the immoral purposes required for conviction under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2421. Fisher v. United States, 266 F. 667 (4th Cir. 1920). In United States v. Lias, 173 F.2d 685 (4th Cir. 1949), the court’s opinion by the late Judge Parker in persuasive dictum upheld the granting of the motion to withdraw a guilty plea where the district judge found manifest injustice on the defendant’s affidavit that his plea was based on a belief that he would receive probation and his insistence that he was not guilty. Judge Parker stated the district court acted properly “if as a result of what the judge had said, the defendant was misled into pleading guilty under the belief that he would receive probation.” I think that the same principle should apply where the defendant relies on representations by his lawyer that the judge or prosecuting attorney has made promises of probation. In either case the defendant is equally mistaken as to the consequences of his plea and in either case the mistake is induced by a reasonable reliance on statements of fact made by officers of the court.
A hearing on Jackson’s motion could disclose, according to what his counsel stated to the court at the time of sentencing and according to the unchallenged affidavits filed in the court, that the morning of the trial in the courtroom Jackson’s counsel told him that if he changed his plea to guilty the court had promised to give him probation, provided the probation report coincided with what Jackson’s attorneys had represented to the court; and that Jackson pleaded guilty on that advice or that the United States Attorney had promised to recommend probation in his case and later did not do so. The record contains no response of any kind by the United States Attorney to any of these charges and certainly contains no sworn testimony by him. At a hearing, testimony by the United States Attorney, by Jackson’s trial attorney, and by Jackson could be P-.ken under oath and subject to cross-examination. Moreover, elements of the story told by Jackson’s attorney are subject to independent verification. For example, Jackson’s attorney alleges that the United States Attorney stated that his daughter was in the hospital and for this reason he desired to dispose of the case *138quickly by means of a negotiated guilty plea. If it could be proven that the daughter was actually in the hospital, this would lend credence to Jackson’s story.
The government argues that Jackson’s answers to the court’s questions, to the effect that his attorneys did not tell him the court had made promises, conclusively show that Jackson’s plea was not made in reliance on a promise. This argument raises the question of the practice indulged in by courts in the use of the “negotiated plea of guilty.” 3
“Plea bargaining” between prosecutors and defense counsel is in common use in the administration of criminal law, is practically necessary in dealing with heavy criminal dockets and serves an important part in preserving the quality of justice in criminal courts. There is no need therefore for us to pretend the practice is not there, or to hide it from the public as something unworthy of courts of justice. It can be, if conducted fairly and forthrightly, a salutary practice, although subject to abuse and not free from question about its secrecy, needs of defendants for correction, and inducing surrender of trial.
Nevertheless “plea bargaining” is commonly practiced covertly.. After the guilty plea is negotiated by the prosecutor and defense counsel and agreed to by the defendant, defendant follows the rubric of telling the court no promise has induced the plea, and while this game is played the prosecutor and defense counsel mutely corroborate the defendant’s false statement. Often a court knows of the negotiations and yet plays its part in the rubric by asking the question about any promise, knowing that the answer will be false. See Harrell v. United States, 371 F.2d 160, 163 (7th Cir. 1967) (dissenting opinion by Judge Cummings). The idea of correction of the defendant is frequently lost sight of. There is no reason for the game and the entire system of criminal law administration would be better off if everyone opened his eyes in a forthright recognition that the “plea bargaining” process is needed in the practicality of administering the criminal law.4
In view of these considerations we should not treat Jackson’s statement when the guilty plea was entered as precluding a probability that the guilty plea was induced by advice of his counsel who misconceived the result of the hurried negotiations and conference on trial day.
This discussion should by no means be read as a criticism of the able district judge whose decision is before us. I would reverse, not because I believe that a promise was made, but because Jackson’s plea might have been the result of his belief, induced by his lawyers, that a promise had been made.
In my opinion the circumstances shown in this record require that a hearing be conducted, on Jackson’s motion, to determine whether the result of Jackson’s attorney’s communication to Jackson of what transpired between that attorney and the United States Attorney and district judge was to render the plea of guilty void because induced by his belief that he had been promised a concession by the United States Attorney or lenient treatment. Scott v. United States, 6 Cir., 349 F.2d 641.

. The standard for the necessity, of a hearing on a motion to withdraw a plea of guilty is the same as that for determining the necessity for a hearing under See. 2255. 8 Moose’s Federal Practice If 32.07 [4].

. In my view the issue of whether a promise was made is irrelevant since the only question involved is whether Jackson had been informed by his attorney that a promise had been made and that this information was the basis upon which he pleaded guilty. The statements of Jackson’s attorney during the sentencing hearing led the trial judge away from this question.

. As it is called in “The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society — A Report by the President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice.”

. The notions expressed in this dissent with respect to the “plea bargaining” process are extensively discussed in reports of the President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice. The Commission recommends, , among other things, that the agreed disposition be openly acknowledged and fully presented to the judge for review for fairness to the defendant and the public before the plea is entered. In order that this review function be adequately performed the Commission recommends that the judge not become too involved in the negotiations, but retain sufficient independence to verify that “defendant’s plea is the result of an intelligent and knowing choice and not based on misapprehension or the product of coercion.”