United States v. Ross
2008 WL 5046915, 588 F. Supp. 2d 777, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109074 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Statements made by a defendant to law enforcement agents are considered inadmissible plea discussions under Federal Rule of Evidence 410 if a government attorney authorized the agents to engage in the discussions, regardless of whether the attorney was physically present.
Facts:
- Bryan Ross was allegedly part of a scheme to steal motor vehicles by using counterfeit bank checks.
- On July 3, 2003, Ross was arrested on a complaint charging him with bank fraud.
- A few days later, on July 8, 2003, Ross and his attorney, Jill Price, met with federal law enforcement agents, including Special Agent Darren Dodd.
- An Assistant U.S. Attorney (AUSA) presented Ross and his attorney with an unsigned 'Kastigar letter,' which proposed terms for a proffer session.
- During this meeting, Ross made inculpatory statements, admitting to limited participation in the scheme by accompanying another person to purchase a Corvette with a counterfeit check.
- Ross's attorney terminated the interview when an agent pointed out a factual inconsistency in Ross's story.
- On October 18, 2007, Ross was arrested on a new indictment for the same scheme.
- During the booking process for the 2007 arrest, Ross made several statements, including hoping federal prison was better than state prison and that when asked about his employment, he was unemployed and the agents 'knew what he did.'
Procedural Posture:
- Defendant Bryan Ross was charged in a federal indictment with conspiracy and uttering counterfeit securities.
- The case was brought before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.
- Ross filed a motion in limine seeking to exclude from trial certain statements he made on two separate occasions: one in July 2003 and another in October 2007.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do statements made by a defendant to law enforcement agents, without a prosecutor physically present but with the prosecutor's authorization, constitute 'plea discussions' under Federal Rule of Evidence 410, thereby making them inadmissible at trial?
Opinions:
Majority - David M. Lawson
Yes, statements made by a defendant to law enforcement agents authorized by a prosecutor constitute inadmissible plea discussions under Federal Rule of Evidence 410. The court found that the involvement of a government attorney in the negotiation process, not physical presence at the debriefing, triggers the application of Rule 410. Here, the AUSA authorized and approved the meeting, as evidenced by the proposed proffer agreement and the agent's own report. The court characterized such 'preliminary discussions' and 'proffers' as the nascent stages of plea negotiations, which fall under the protection of the rule. Because the proffer agreement letter containing a waiver of Rule 410 was never signed by Ross or his counsel, it is unenforceable, and its terms cannot be used to admit the statements. For the separate 2007 booking statements, the court ruled that references to 'state prison' are excluded under FRE 403 as unfairly prejudicial, while other statements showing guilty knowledge are admissible because their probative value is not substantially outweighed by prejudice.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces a functional, rather than a strictly formalistic, interpretation of 'plea discussions' under Federal Rule of Evidence 410. By focusing on the prosecutor's authorization of the meeting rather than physical presence, the ruling prevents the government from circumventing the rule's protections by using agents as intermediaries. It clarifies that even preliminary 'proffer' sessions are protected, broadening the scope of what constitutes a plea negotiation. Furthermore, the case serves as a critical reminder of contract law principles in the context of immunity agreements, emphasizing that unsigned proffer letters are unenforceable and cannot waive a defendant's statutory rights under the Rules of Evidence.
