Corruption hypothetical in Kansas City

In connection with Rule 410, consider this hypothetical:

The FBI and IRS were investigating corruption in Kansas City, Missouri. An informant told them that Walker LaBrunerie had bribed a city council member to obtain a favorable ruling on a zoning matter. The investigating officers contacted LaBrunerie. After meeting with two FBI agents, LaBrunerie attended a meeting with Assistant U.S. Attorney Paul Becker. The agents discouraged LaBrunerie from bringing counsel to this meeting and he did not do so. LaBrunerie was, however, himself a Harvard Law School graduate. Becker began his discussions with LaBrunerie by explaining the bribery charges he could face, the general nature of the federal sentencing guidelines, and the effect of cooperation under the guidelines. He did not offer any specific charge or sentencing reduction to LaBrunerie. At this point, LaBrunerie described the corruption scheme in which he had participated, incriminating himself and others. A grand jury indicted LaBrunerie for bribery.

Write a 300-500 word essay on the hypothetical. At trial, may the prosecutor introduce the incriminating statements made to Becker? Why or why not?

Consider what LaBrunerie could have done/said to more likely bring himself under the scope of the Rule.

Rule 410 – Pleas, Plea Discussions, and Related Statements
(a) Prohibited Uses. In a civil or criminal case, evidence of the following is not admissible against the defendant who made the plea or participated in the plea discussions:

(1) a guilty plea that was later withdrawn;

(2) a nolo contendere plea;

(3) a statement made during a proceeding on either of those pleas under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 or a comparable state procedure; or

(4) a statement made during plea discussions with an attorney for the prosecuting authority if the discussions did not result in a guilty plea or they resulted in a later-withdrawn guilty plea.

(b) Exceptions. The court may admit a statement described in Rule 410(a)(3) or (4):

(1) in any proceeding in which another statement made during the same plea or plea discussions has been introduced, if in fairness the statements ought to be considered together; or

(2) in a criminal proceeding for perjury or false statement, if the defendant made the statement under oath, on the record, and with counsel present.
Order Notes

This question has been answered.

Get Answer