Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit; November 29, 2006; Federal Appellate Court
Richard Jones, Jr. appeals his conviction and 420-month sentence for six narcotics and weapons offenses. Following his 2000 arrest, Jones pled guilty to two counts under a conditional plea agreement, which included his cooperation with an FBI investigation into cocaine trafficking in East Tennessee, resulting in a 210-month sentence. However, in 2003, the Sixth Circuit ruled that the search of Jones's residence was unlawful due to lack of consent, prompting a remand to the District Court. Upon returning, Jones withdrew his guilty plea, leading the government to issue a seven-count superseding indictment, which included two charges from the original indictment and five new ones. A jury subsequently convicted Jones on six counts, and he was sentenced to 420 months in prison.
Jones contests the District Court's decisions to reinstate the two charges from the first indictment and to allow his FBI statement and related evidence at trial. The Court affirmed the District Court's rulings, reasoning that Jones's withdrawal from the plea agreement nullified it, allowing the government to pursue any lawfully obtained evidence, including his FBI statement. The background details his extensive cocaine distribution operations in Knoxville and the circumstances surrounding his arrest, including the seizure of drugs and weapons that led to his initial charges.
Jones withdrew his guilty plea in the District Court, leading to the government's motion to reinstate two previously dismissed charges: conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine and unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon. Subsequently, the government filed a superseding indictment with seven charges, including five new charges based on information Jones had provided during prior cooperation. Jones's motions to dismiss the indictment and the new charges were denied. After rejecting a plea agreement that would have imposed a 210-month sentence, Jones went to trial and was convicted on six of the seven counts, resulting in a 420-month prison sentence.
On appeal, Jones raised two main arguments: first, that the plea agreement remained binding on the government despite his withdrawal, which should have prevented the reinstatement of dismissed charges or the addition of new ones; second, that the District Court wrongly admitted incriminating statements he made to the FBI under the plea agreement. The District Court held that the government was not bound by the plea agreement after Jones's withdrawal, citing that such a withdrawal frees the government to re-indict the defendant based on lawfully obtained evidence. This reasoning was supported by case law, including *United States v. Bradley*, where the court found that the suppression of evidence nullified the original plea agreement, allowing for a new indictment. Similar precedent indicates that the government can pursue dismissed charges after a defendant withdraws their plea following a favorable appellate ruling.
Jones's withdrawal of his guilty plea nullified the plea agreement, eliminating the government's obligation to drop certain charges and allowing for new indictments based on legally obtained evidence. The District Court ruled correctly that reinstating previously dismissed charges was permissible. Jones's claims of prosecutorial misconduct and vindictiveness regarding his cooperation with the government were unsupported by evidence, leading to the affirmation of the indictment.
Jones contended that his statement to the FBI was inadmissible at trial due to the plea agreement and Federal Rule of Evidence 410, which protects statements made during plea negotiations. However, the District Court allowed the FBI statement, as it was deemed admissible because Jones's withdrawal of the plea violated the agreement's terms, which permitted the government to use his statement if he breached the agreement.
Jones had initially provided a detailed statement regarding drug trafficking as part of a cooperation plea agreement, which stated that the government could use his statement if he violated the agreement. By withdrawing his plea, he breached that agreement, permitting the government to utilize his statement against him. Furthermore, statements made under cooperation agreements are not protected by Rule 410, as they are not considered "made in the course of plea discussions." As a result, the District Court's decision to admit Jones's FBI statement was upheld, affirming the judgment against him.
