Rule 11(C)(1)(C) Plea Agreement

The language of the amendment identifies more precisely than the current language identifies the necessary relationship between statements and advocacy or discussion. See the dispute between majority and converging opinions in United States v. Herman, 544 F.2d 791 (5. Cir. 1977), on the meaning and effect of the terms “connection to” and “relevant to” in this rule. In addition, the amendment ensures that “even the attempt to open arguments falls under the same rule of inadmissibility by referring to statements to “pleas” and not to “an offer of plea.” United States vs. Brooks, 536 F.2d 1137 (6th Cir. 1976). Even if the McCarthy rule itself was justified at that time and in the circumstances that occurred at the time of the motion in this proceeding, this is no longer the case.

On the one hand, it is important to remember that McCarthy dealt only with the much simpler version of section 11 before 1975, which required only a short procedure, in which the chances of a minor, insignificant and unintentional deviation were relatively low. This means that the chances of a really harmless error (which was not involved in McCarthy anyway, since the judge did not investigate the accused`s understanding of the nature of the charge and the government had advanced only the extreme argument that a court could “reasonably consider that the petitioner made this plea with a full understanding of the charges against him” because he had stated that he wanted to plead guilty. , that it was much bigger. Rule 11 than according to the text of the Court of Justice in McCarthy. It also means that the more elaborate and lengthy procedures of the present Rule 11, again in relation to mcCarthy`s version, make it clearer than ever that an admission of guilt is not “a mere gesture, a temporary and insignificant formality, reversible according to the mood of the accused,” but “a fatal and solemn act” that “is accepted only with care and discernment.” “United States v. Barker, 514 F.2d 208 (D.C.Cir.1975), quoted by Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (1970). Such an objection should not be lifted, even in direct recourse, in the event of a minor and technical violation of Rule 11, which amounts to a harmless error. Following the notification of the appeal agreement, the Tribunal has the option of accepting or rejecting the agreement or postponing its decision until the preliminary report is received. The requirement that the plea submitted to the defendant “reserves in writing the defendant`s right to challenge in court the negative provision of a particular claim,” although it goes beyond the practice of the second circle, will ensure careful compliance with any conditional means.