United States v. Mezzanatto

4 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. Evidence - Rule 410 and Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(f)

    Garland, Samuel & Loeb, P.C.Don SamuelSeptember 1, 2015

    United States v. Mezzanatto, 513 U.S. 196 (1995)The protection provided by Rule 410, Fed.R.Evid. and Rule 11(e)(6) Fed.R.Crim.P. (now located at Rule 11(f)) can be waived by the defendant. Thus, a defendant may engage in plea negotiations and agree to the government’s terms that the statements he made during the course of these discussions could, in the event a plea was not entered, be used for impeachment purposes at trial.

  2. Can victims limit prosecutorial discretion

    Law Office of Phillip CavePhillip D. CaveAugust 1, 2014

    The Supreme Court itself has stated that an accused can waive fundamental constitutional requirements of a trial. United States v. Mezzaatto, 513 U.S. 196 (1995).There are some matters that cannot be bargained away and the military appellate courts have been alert to unconscionable terms in a pretrial agreement. For example, by executive order the President has declared that certain matters may not be bargained away.

  3. Capital Defense Weekly, January 10, 2000

    Capital Defense NewsletterJanuary 9, 2000

    The State Court of Appeals, however, reversed and ordered that the indictment be dismissed; counsel’s agreement to a later trial date, it held, did not waive respondent’s IAD speedy trial rights.Held: Defense counsel’s agreement to a trial date outside the IAD period bars the defendant from seeking dismissal on the ground that trial did not occur within that period. This Court has articulated a general rule that presumes the availability of waiver, United States v. Mezzanatto, 513 U.S. 196, 200—201, and has recognized that the most basic rights of criminal defendants are subject to waiver, Peretz v. United States,501 U.S. 923, 936. For certain fundamental rights, the defendant must personally make an informed waiver, but scheduling matters are plainly among those for which agreement by counsel generally controls.

  4. Capital Defense Weekly, June 14, 1999

    Capital Defense NewsletterJune 14, 1999

    Proper respect for state procedures counsels against a requirement that all possible claims be raised in state collateral proceedings, even when no known facts support them. The presumption, well established by “‘tradition and experience,’” that prosecutors have fully “‘discharged their official duties,’” United States v. Mezzanatto, 513 U.S. 196, 210 (1995), is inconsistent with the novel suggestion that conscientious defense counsel have a procedural obligation to assert constitutional error on the basis of mere suspicion that some prosecutorial misstep may have occurred.The Commonwealth’s position on the “cause” issue is particularly weak in this case because the state habeas proceedings confirmed petitioner’s justification for his failure to raise a Brady claim. As already noted, when he alleged that trial counsel had been incompetent because they had not advanced such a claim, the warden responded by pointing out that there was no need for counsel to do so because they “were voluntarily given full disclosure of everything known to the government.”