Welcome to Evidence Module 10 related to Federal Rule of Evidence 410. Rule 410 is one of five rules of specialized relevance that we are studying. Rule 410, however, is different from the other four in that it is a rule of broad exclusion. It broadly excludes evidence related to plea bargains and plea bargain statements with only two narrow exceptions of admissibility.
First, what does Rule 410 ban? It bans admission into evidence in any criminal or civil case against defendant of first, a guilty plea that is later withdrawn, second, a nolo contendere or no contest plea, third, statements in plea proceedings to determine the voluntariness of the pleas, and fourth, statements in plea discussions with a prosecutor. What, however, does Rule 410 permit? What evidence might survive Rule 410's broad exclusionary principle?
Two things survive. First, evidence of a plea bargain that is necessary to complete a partial account of a plea discussion. For instance, when a criminal defendant chooses to introduce evidence from a plea discussion for his own benefit and additional information may be necessary in order to complete the account and for it to make sense to the jury, and second, in a perjury prosecution if certain requirements are met.
Three other preliminary notes. First, Rule 410 is a one-way ratchet. It only protects defendants.
Prosecutors may not benefit from the broad rule of exclusion contained in Rule 410. In other words, a defendant who wants to get in statements from plea discussions to show his consciousness of innocence in a case for instance to show that the defendant consistently maintained his innocence and chose to exercise his right to trial that evidence would be admissible to be fair some courts have expressed concerns about this one-way ratchet for fear that prosecutors might be deterred from speaking their minds during plead bargaining discussions for fear that that information might be used against the state at trial. Nevertheless, the majority rule and the clear language of Rule 410 suggest that it only protects defendants. Second, Rule 410 evidence may not be admitted to impeach a criminal defendant. And third, the fourth category of banned evidence in Rule 410, statements and plea discussions with prosecutors has a few interesting issues related to it.
First, it is important to determine when those plea discussions begin. If a criminal defendant unilaterally offers information without negotiations having commenced, that information might not necessarily be banned. In addition, the discussions must be with prosecutors.
If a criminal defendant says something, to the police, even if the criminal defendant believes that it is part of a plea conversation, then the rule may not necessarily apply. Now, what might explain Rule 410's broad exclusionary principle? Like the other rules, sappy rules as I call them, Rule 410 is grounded in both relevance and public policy. First, in terms of relevance, Information related to a plea bargain has limited probative value.
After all, there are many reasons why a criminal defendant may consider a plea bargain and say certain things during those negotiations. For instance, if he is risk-averse and worried about losing a trial. In other words, it does not necessarily show that the criminal defendant is guilty. Moreover, this information carries with it a high risk of unfair prejudice.
because a jury may interpret a criminal defendant's willingness to consider a plea bargain as an indicator of guilt. As for public policy, it seems quite clear that the criminal justice system relies on plea bargaining in order for the system to be somewhat efficient. After all, Over 95% of criminal cases currently result in plea bargains, and the system is ill-equipped to deal with a much larger number of trials than it currently absorbs.
In addition, plea bargain can help solve other cases. For instance, suppose that Adam has entered into a plea bargain in a criminal case, and a condition of that plea bargain is that Adam will testify against Brenda. in another criminal case. So it's quite possible that one plea bargain could help resolve two or more criminal cases.