United States v. Mezzanatto
513 U.S. 196 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The protections afforded to a criminal defendant under Federal Rule of Evidence 410 and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(e)(6), which make statements made during plea discussions inadmissible against the defendant, can be knowingly and voluntarily waived.
Facts:
- Narcotics agents arrested Gordon Shuster after discovering a methamphetamine laboratory at his residence.
- Shuster agreed to cooperate with agents and arranged to meet the respondent, Gary Mezzanatto, to sell methamphetamine to an undercover officer posing as a friend.
- At the meeting, Mezzanatto produced a package containing approximately one pound of methamphetamine from his car for the undercover officer.
- After his arrest, Mezzanatto and his attorney met with a prosecutor to discuss the possibility of cooperating with the government.
- As a condition for the meeting, the prosecutor required Mezzanatto to agree that any statements he made could be used to impeach any contradictory testimony he might give at trial.
- After consulting with his counsel, Mezzanatto agreed to the prosecutor's terms.
- During the meeting, Mezzanatto made several incriminating statements but also provided information that the government believed was untruthful.
- The government terminated the meeting due to Mezzanatto's perceived lack of truthfulness.
Procedural Posture:
- Mezzanatto was charged in the United States District Court with possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute.
- At trial, Mezzanatto testified in his own defense, and the prosecutor, over objection, cross-examined him using inconsistent statements made during the prior plea discussion.
- A jury found Mezzanatto guilty.
- Mezzanatto appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, arguing the district court erred by admitting the plea statements.
- The Ninth Circuit (intermediate appellate court) reversed the conviction, holding that the agreement to waive the plea-statement rules was unenforceable.
- The United States (the Government) petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Can a criminal defendant knowingly and voluntarily waive the protections of Federal Rule of Evidence 410 and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(e)(6), which generally render statements made during plea discussions inadmissible against the defendant?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Thomas
Yes. A criminal defendant can knowingly and voluntarily waive the protections of Federal Rule of Evidence 410 and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(e)(6). There is a strong presumption that statutory and constitutional rights are waivable by the person they are intended to benefit. Unlike other rules where Congress has explicitly limited or precluded waiver, the plea-statement Rules are silent on the matter, so the presumption of waivability applies. Enforcing such waiver agreements enhances the truth-seeking function of a trial by allowing the jury to assess a defendant's credibility when confronted with prior inconsistent statements. Prohibiting waiver could stifle plea bargaining, as prosecutors might be unwilling to enter discussions without an assurance of the defendant's truthfulness. Any concerns about prosecutorial overreach should be addressed through case-by-case inquiries into whether a specific waiver was knowing and voluntary, not through a categorical ban.
Concurring - Justice Ginsburg
Yes. The Court correctly holds that a waiver is valid for the purpose of using plea-discussion statements for impeachment. However, this holding is limited to impeachment use. The question of whether a waiver would be enforceable if it allowed the government to use such statements in its case-in-chief is not before the Court and might raise different concerns, as it could more severely inhibit plea bargaining.
Dissenting - Justice Souter
No. The plea-statement Rules were created by Congress not just as a personal right for the defendant, but to serve the judicial system's interest in promoting plea bargains by creating a zone of 'unrestrained candor.' Allowing prosecutors to demand waivers as a precondition for talks destroys this zone of candor and thwarts the legislative policy behind the rules. The majority's holding will lead to waiver becoming a standard, non-negotiable term in all plea discussions, rendering the protections of the Rules a 'dead letter.' This erosion will not stop at impeachment but will likely extend to using statements in the case-in-chief, making it impossible for a defendant to negotiate without simultaneously providing admissible evidence of their guilt.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the legal principle that most procedural and evidentiary rights are personal to a defendant and are presumptively waivable. It gives prosecutors a significant strategic tool, allowing them to condition plea negotiations on a defendant's agreement to waive the inadmissibility of their statements for impeachment purposes. The dissent's fear that this will become a coercive, standard practice has largely proven true, with such 'Mezzanatto waivers' now common. The ruling prioritizes the truth-seeking function of a trial and party autonomy over a more protective, systemic approach to encouraging plea discussions, leaving the door open for future litigation on the enforceability of waivers for use in the government's case-in-chief.
