Kercheval v. United States
274 U.S. 220 (1927)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plea of guilty that has been withdrawn by leave of the court is inadmissible as evidence against the defendant in a subsequent trial on the same charge.
Facts:
- Kercheval was charged with using the mails to defraud.
- A prosecuting attorney allegedly promised Kercheval that if he pleaded guilty, the attorney would recommend a sentence of three months in jail and a $1,000 fine.
- The attorney also allegedly stated that the court would impose that specific sentence.
- Relying on these representations, Kercheval entered a plea of guilty.
- Contrary to the alleged promise, the court sentenced Kercheval to three years in the penitentiary.
Procedural Posture:
- Kercheval was indicted in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas.
- He initially pleaded guilty and was sentenced to three years in prison.
- Kercheval filed a petition in the District Court to have his sentence set aside, alleging it was induced by a prosecutor's unfulfilled promise.
- The District Court set aside the judgment, permitted Kercheval to withdraw his guilty plea, and allowed him to plead not guilty.
- At the new trial in the same District Court, the prosecution introduced the withdrawn guilty plea into evidence over Kercheval's objection.
- A jury found Kercheval guilty, and the court sentenced him to three years.
- Kercheval, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed the conviction, holding the withdrawn plea was admissible.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a plea of guilty that a court has permitted a defendant to withdraw admissible as evidence against that defendant in a subsequent trial for the same offense?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Butler
No, a plea of guilty withdrawn by leave of court is not admissible on the trial of the issue arising on the substituted plea of not guilty. A guilty plea is not a mere admission but is itself a conviction, and courts permit its withdrawal out of just consideration for an accused who may have pleaded unfairly or through ignorance, fear, or inadvertence. When a court grants a motion to withdraw a plea, its order adjudges that the plea be 'held for naught.' To subsequently use that annulled plea as evidence against the defendant is in direct conflict with the court's order. Doing so reinstates the plea 'pro tanto' and places the defendant in a dilemma utterly inconsistent with the court's determination to grant a trial, rendering the privilege of withdrawal meaningless.
Concurring - Mr. Justice Stone
Justice Stone concurs in the result without a written opinion.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a bright-line evidentiary rule in federal criminal procedure, categorically excluding withdrawn guilty pleas from being used as evidence of guilt. The ruling protects the integrity of the plea withdrawal process by ensuring that the grant of a new trial is a meaningful remedy, not a 'poor privilege.' By treating the withdrawn plea as legally void for evidentiary purposes, the Court prevents the prosecution from benefiting from a plea that the judicial system itself has deemed invalid, thereby ensuring a fairer subsequent trial on the merits.
Unlock the full brief for Kercheval v. United States