Also known as: plea · pleas · plea discussion · plea discussions · related statement · related statements · FRE 410 · plea bargaining evidence
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
An evidentiary rule that bars admission in civil or criminal cases of a withdrawn guilty plea, a nolo contendere plea, statements made during proceedings on those pleas, or statements made during plea discussions with a prosecutor when the discussions do not produce a guilty plea or produce one that is later withdrawn. The rule protects only the defendant who made the plea or participated in the discussions and does not apply when the defendant offers the evidence or when another purpose such as impeachment after a knowing waiver is at issue.
Preston Pratt entered a guilty plea to theft charges during negotiations with the prosecutor. He later withdrew the plea and proceeded to trial. At trial the prosecutor sought to introduce the withdrawn plea to show consciousness of guilt. The court excluded the evidence because the rule bars use of a withdrawn guilty plea against the defendant who made it.
Nathan Norton entered a nolo contendere plea to a misdemeanor charge. In a later civil action arising from the same facts the plaintiff attempted to offer the nolo plea as an admission. The court excluded the evidence because the rule bars use of a nolo contendere plea against the defendant who entered it.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Nancy Nolan made incriminating statements during plea talks with the prosecutor that produced no agreement. At trial the prosecutor offered those statements as admissions. The court excluded the evidence because the rule bars statements made during plea discussions that did not result in a guilty plea.
Neil Norris made statements during a Rule 11 hearing on a later-withdrawn guilty plea. The prosecutor sought to introduce those statements at the subsequent trial. The court excluded the evidence because the rule bars statements made during proceedings on a withdrawn guilty plea.
Priya Prasad signed a written waiver during plea talks stating that any statements she made could be used to impeach her at trial if she later testified inconsistently. After the talks collapsed she testified at trial and gave a different account. The prosecutor introduced her earlier statements for impeachment because the waiver was knowing and voluntary.
Penelope Price pleaded guilty to embezzlement and then successfully moved to withdraw the plea before sentencing. At the subsequent trial the prosecutor attempted to offer the withdrawn plea as an admission. The court excluded the evidence because a guilty plea that has been withdrawn is inadmissible against the defendant.
The rule excludes a withdrawn guilty plea, a nolo contendere plea, statements made during Rule 11 proceedings on those pleas, and statements made during plea discussions with a prosecutor that do not result in a guilty plea or that result in a later-withdrawn guilty plea. The protection applies only against the defendant who made the plea or participated in the discussions.
Supporting sources
A defendant may waive the rule's protections and allow use of plea-negotiation statements for impeachment if the waiver is knowing and voluntary. Courts enforce such waivers when the record shows the defendant understood the rights being relinquished.
Supporting sources
The rule applies in both civil and criminal cases to bar the specified evidence against the defendant who made the plea or participated in the discussions. It does not prevent the defendant from offering the evidence or bar its use for other permitted purposes such as proving bias or obstruction.
Supporting sources
…and H.R. 11508, 72d Cong., 1st Sess., ser. 12 (1932) 97-104; Sen. Rep. No. 530, 72d Cong., 1st Sess. (1932) 4-6; Collier, A Plea Against Jurisdiction Because of Diversity (1913) 76 Cent. L.J. 263, 264, 266; Frankfurter, supra note 6; Ball, supra note 6; Warren, Corporations and Diversity of Citizenship (1933) 19…