United States v. Ruiz
536 U.S. 622 (2002)
Rule of Law:
The Fifth and Sixth Amendments do not require federal prosecutors to disclose impeachment information relating to informants or other witnesses to a defendant before the defendant enters into a binding plea agreement.
Facts:
- Immigration agents discovered 30 kilograms of marijuana in Angela Ruiz’s luggage.
- Federal prosecutors offered Ruiz a 'fast track' plea bargain, which included a recommendation for a reduced sentence.
- The proposed plea agreement required Ruiz to waive indictment, trial, and appeal.
- A key term of the agreement required Ruiz to waive her right to receive 'impeachment information relating to any informants or other witnesses.'
- Ruiz refused to agree to this specific waiver concerning impeachment information.
- As a result of her refusal, the prosecutors withdrew their plea offer.
Procedural Posture:
- The Government indicted Angela Ruiz for unlawful drug possession in U.S. District Court.
- Ruiz ultimately pleaded guilty without a plea agreement.
- At sentencing, the District Court denied Ruiz's request for a downward departure and imposed a standard sentence.
- Ruiz (appellant) appealed her sentence to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- The Ninth Circuit (intermediate appellate court) vacated the sentence, holding that the government's offered plea agreement was unconstitutional because it required waiving the right to receive impeachment information.
- The United States (petitioner) petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court 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:
Does the Fifth and Sixth Amendments' guarantee of a fair trial require federal prosecutors to disclose impeachment information to a criminal defendant before the defendant enters into a plea agreement?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Breyer
No, the Constitution does not require prosecutors to disclose impeachment information before a defendant enters into a plea agreement. The right to receive such information is part of the guarantee of a fair trial, not a prerequisite for entering a voluntary plea. A plea is considered voluntary and intelligent if the defendant understands the nature of the rights they are waiving in general, even without knowing the specific details of the government's evidence. The Court reasoned that forcing pre-plea disclosure would create significant burdens on the government, such as disrupting ongoing investigations and endangering witnesses, which would outweigh the limited additional benefit to the defendant, thereby undermining the efficiency of the plea-bargaining system.
Concurring - Justice Thomas
No, the Constitution does not require pre-plea disclosure of impeachment information. The reasoning is simpler than the majority's balancing test. The principle established in Brady v. Maryland is intended to ensure the 'avoidance of an unfair trial.' A defendant who pleads guilty waives their right to a trial. Therefore, the concern about a fair trial is not implicated at the plea stage, and the Brady disclosure right does not apply.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the scope of the government's discovery obligations under Brady and Giglio, firmly distinguishing between rights applicable to a trial and those applicable to plea bargaining. By ruling that impeachment information need not be disclosed before a plea, the Court prioritizes the efficiency and finality of the plea-bargaining process, which resolves over 90% of federal criminal cases. This holding strengthens the government's position in plea negotiations, as defendants cannot use the discovery process to probe for weaknesses in the prosecution's case before deciding whether to plead guilty. The ruling allows prosecutors to offer 'fast track' pleas conditioned on such waivers, encouraging quicker resolutions of cases.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: United States v. Ruiz (2002)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"