{"id":12025,"date":"2018-10-24T12:00:48","date_gmt":"2018-10-24T17:00:48","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/?p=12025"},"modified":"2019-05-20T21:25:44","modified_gmt":"2019-05-21T02:25:44","slug":"pleading-in-the-dark-plea-bargaining-without-the-brady-rule","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/2018\/10\/24\/pleading-in-the-dark-plea-bargaining-without-the-brady-rule\/","title":{"rendered":"Pleading in the Dark: Plea Bargaining Without the Brady Rule"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"
Image courtesy of Pixabay.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

By Andrew Beluk, Staff Writer<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

It is nothing new to say that the American criminal justice system has some faults.\u00a0 A common source of criticism stems from prosecutorial overuse of the plea-bargaining system, which accounts for roughly 97% of all federal criminal convictions in the United States.[1]<\/sup><\/a> \u00a0But arguably the most controversial aspect of the plea-bargaining system is how it strips defendants of certain Constitutional rights.\u00a0 It has an especially negative impact on a defendant\u2019s Fifth Amendment right to due process of law.[2]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

In the landmark case of Brady v. Maryland<\/em>, the Supreme Court held that a prosecutor\u2019s suppression of evidence favorable to a defendant violates due process.[3]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 However, the Brady<\/em> Court\u2019s holding was limited to a defendant\u2019s rights at trial.\u00a0 Since the Brady <\/em>decision in 1963, courts have struggled to determine if the Brady<\/em> rule extends to pretrial plea bargains. The Fifth Circuit recently addressed this issue in Alvarez v. City of Brownsville<\/em>.[4]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

In Alvarez<\/em>, the defendant, George Alvarez, was involved in an altercation with a correctional officer in a detention facility and charged with assault on a public servant.[5]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 The altercation was captured on video, however, the videos were not passed to the criminal investigation division of the Brownsville Police Department or to Alvarez.[6]<\/sup><\/a> \u00a0With no knowledge of the videos, Alverez plead guilty and received an eight-year suspended sentence with ten years of community supervision.[7]<\/sup><\/a> \u00a0Alvarez subsequently violated the terms of his supervision and the state revoked the suspension of his sentence.[8]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Roughly four years into his prison sentence, the videos of the altercation surfaced during discovery in an unrelated \u00a7 1983 case.[9]<\/sup><\/a> \u00a0After the videos were discovered, Alverez filed a writ of habeas corpus in Texas State Court and \u201cthe Texas Court of Criminal Appeals concluded that Alverez was \u2018actually innocent\u2019 of committing the assault.\u201d[10]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 Alverez then sued the City of Brownsville, the officer involved in the altercation, and other individuals from the Brownsville Police Department.[11]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 Alverez asserted claims under \u00a7 1983, which included claims for nondisclosure of exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady<\/em>.[12]<\/sup><\/a> \u00a0The defendants filed motions for summary judgment seeking to dismiss Alverez\u2019s claims.[13]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

The district court denied the motion for summary judgment as to Alvarez\u2019s Brady<\/em> claim against the City of Brownsville for nondisclosure of exculpatory evidence and the other claims were later dismissed.[14]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 Alverez and the City of Brownsville then filed cross motions for summary judgment and the district court held that there was a Brady<\/em> violation as a matter of law.[15]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 The City of Brownsville appealed. \u00a0On appeal, a panel of the 5th Circuit held that Alvarez waived the right to assert a Brady<\/em> claim by entering a guilty plea.[16]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 The 5th granted an en banc rehearing.\u00a0 The en banc court reached the same conclusion as the panel and declined to \u201cdisturb [the 5th Circuit\u2019s] settled precedent and abstain[ed] from expanding the Brady <\/em>right to the pretrial plea bargaining context for Alvarez.\u201d [17]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals was not the first court to reach this conclusion.\u00a0 The First[18]<\/sup><\/a>, Second[19]<\/sup><\/a>, and Fourth[20]<\/sup><\/a> Circuit Courts have also reached similar conclusions about the Brady<\/em> rule\u2019s applicability to pretrial plea bargaining. The Circuit Courts all relied on Supreme Court\u2019s holding in United States v. Ruiz<\/em>, 536 U.S. 622 (2002).<\/p>\n

In Ruiz<\/em>, the Supreme Court held that \u201cthe Constitution does not require the Government to disclose material impeachment evidence prior to entering a plea agreement with a criminal defendant.\u201d [21]<\/sup><\/a> The court noted that impeachment evidence was not \u201ccritical information of which the defendant must always be aware prior to pleading guilty.\u201d [22]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Sadly, this reasoning produces troubling results.\u00a0 In the plea bargain system, a defendant faces a choice between a lesser sentence by declaring themselves guilty or going to trial under the threat of a much larger sentence. \u00a0When faced with such a choice, it is reasonable to conclude that people might plead guilty to crimes they did not commit.\u00a0 In fact, this does occur. The National Registry of Exonerations analyzed 1,428 exonerations since 1989 and found that roughly 10% of those exonerees plead guilty during the plea-bargaining stage.[23]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 It is not clear if people chose to plead guilty because they are afraid of going to trial and asserting an effective defense, fear that they will receive a longer sentence, or if they simply cave to the pressure of the system. \u00a0But whatever the cause, it is clear that a defendant is not making an informed decision to accept a plea bargain when the prosecutor is withholding helpful or even exculpatory evidence from the defendant.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Sources:<\/strong><\/p>\n

\n

[1]<\/a> https:\/\/ir.lawnet.fordham.edu\/cgi\/viewcontent.cgi?article=4913&context=flr<\/p>\n

[2]<\/a> https:\/\/www.law.cornell.edu\/constitution\/fifth_amendment<\/p>\n

[3]<\/a> https:\/\/supreme.justia.com\/cases\/federal\/us\/373\/83\/<\/a>; Brady v. Maryland,<\/em> 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963).<\/p>\n

[4]<\/a> Alvarez v. City of Brownsville<\/em>, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 26469 (5th Cir. Sept., 18, 2018).<\/p>\n

[5]<\/a> Id.<\/em> at *8-9.<\/p>\n

[6]<\/a> Id.<\/em> at *8.<\/p>\n

[7]<\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n

[8]<\/a> Id.<\/em> at *9.<\/p>\n

[9]<\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n

[10]<\/a> Id.<\/em> at *10.<\/p>\n

[11]<\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n

[12]<\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n

[13]<\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n

[14]<\/a> Id.<\/em> at *10-11<\/p>\n

[15]<\/a> Id.<\/em> at *11<\/p>\n

[16]<\/a> Id.<\/em> at *12.<\/p>\n

[17]<\/a> Id.<\/em> at *25.<\/p>\n

[18]<\/a> United States v. Mathur<\/em>, 624 F.3d 498 (1st<\/sup> Cir. 2010)<\/p>\n

[19]<\/a> Friedman v. Rehal<\/em>, 618 F.3d 142 (2nd<\/sup> Cir. 2010)<\/p>\n

[20]<\/a> United States v. Moussaoui<\/em>, 591 F.3d 263 (4th<\/sup> Cir. 2010)<\/p>\n

[21]<\/a> United States v. Ruiz<\/em>, 536 U.S. 622, 633 (2002)<\/p>\n

[22]<\/a> Id.<\/em>at 630.<\/p>\n

[23]<\/a> https:\/\/www.nybooks.com\/articles\/2014\/11\/20\/why-innocent-people-plead-guilty\/<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Andrew Beluk, Staff Writer   It is nothing new to say that the American criminal justice system has some faults.\u00a0 A common source of criticism stems from prosecutorial overuse of the plea-bargaining system, which accounts for roughly 97% of all federal criminal convictions in the United States.[1] \u00a0But arguably [\u2026] <\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

Read More<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6,4],"tags":[144,2459,2479,2456,2457,145,2461,2465,143,2460,2464,2463,2458,2462],"class_list":["post-12025","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-juris-blog","category-posts","tag-5th-amendment","tag-alvarez-v-city-of-brownsville","tag-andrew-beluka","tag-brady-rule","tag-brady-v-maryland","tag-due-process","tag-exculpatory-evidence","tag-exoneration","tag-fifth-amendment","tag-guilty","tag-guilty-plea","tag-plea-bargain","tag-plea-bargaining","tag-united-states-v-ruiz"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12025","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=12025"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12025\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":12446,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12025\/revisions\/12446"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12025"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=12025"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=12025"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}