Appellate Law

CA1: nothing wrong with rejecting a guilty plea or showing the indictment

By S. COTUS

US v. Skerret-Ortega, No. 06-1126. The defendant, in this case, argues that his attempts to plead guilty were improperly rejected. The First says that because the District Court didn?t really have the facts necessary to support a conviction, and his reasons for ?pleading guilty? were somewhat ambiguous, there was no error in not accepting the plea. (Seriously, could a defendant ever argue that he was prejudiced by this? Even if he had a good offer on the table.)

The jury was given the indictment and ?Rivera Santiago's sealed motion requesting a downward departure pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1.? He didn?t object. The judge gave an instruction as to what they could use these things for. The First says that there was no plain error, because there was a legitimate reason to show the jury this stuff. 

During rebuttal closing, the defense counsel said "You are going to live with your decision the rest of your life. . . . Are you really going to rest the rest of your lives with the decision you are about to make on a criminal? On a woman that cannot remember the dates?" The prosecutor responded with ?And when you decide this matter as judges, remember that you will live with the decision of course. You will live with the honest decision that you put a criminal behind bars. Not just left out in the street, another criminal to continue selling drugs next to the kids because you saw they sold regardless of the kids, not even caring for any of those kids, one of them was even giving money to a little child to take God knows where. So when you live with your conscience you will live with your knowledge as judges of the fact you did justice. . . .?  The First says that this was just provoked by the defense, and no plain error. 

Full post as published by Appellate Law and Practice on June 13, 2008 (boomark / email).