Deal or No Deal: Why Courts Should Allow Defendants to Present Evidence that They Rejected Favorable Plea Bargains

The Federal Rules allow defendants to present evidence of favorable plea offers that they have rejected. Federal Rule of Evidence 410 states that statements made during plea discussions are inadmissible when offered against the defendant. In drafting and amending the Rules, Congress sought to protect defendants by allowing the Government to present the defendant’s incriminatory statements from plea discussions only after they had presented exculpatory statements from the same. Limiting such protections, the Supreme Court held in United States v. Mezzanatto that prosecutors can force a defendant to waive Rule 410’s coverage by having them sign a waiver authorizing the use of such statements as impeachment evidence at trial if the parties do not reach a plea deal. Courts consistently rely upon Mezzanatto and its progeny to allow prosecutors to use plea discussion statements as substantive evidence of defendants’ guilt in both their case-in-chief and rebuttal. They allow defendants to present evidence that they rejected prosecutorial offers of immunity, but have refused to extend the same logic to evidence of rejected plea bargains. Courts have held that the other Rules of Evidence prevent defendants from doing so. However, this conclusion is incorrect. Such statements withstand the balancing considerations in Rule 403. Courts cannot simultaneously embrace Mezzanatto and reject defendants’ attempts to operate within the scope of the Rules.

“[N]othing in the Rule’s text precludes defendants from presenting evidence that they rejected favorable plea bargains. And because no other rule of evidence prohibits the admission of evidence that a defendant rejected a favorable plea bargain, courts cannot continue to deem evidence of rejected plea bargains inadmissible.” p. 456