Plea Bargain
Takiyah Nicholson
April 24, 2013
Plea Bargaining
United States, Petitioner VS Gary Mazzanato (93-1340), 513 U.S. 196
(1995)
Brief: Respondent was arrested and charged with possession of methamphetamine with the intent to distribute, in violation of 84 Stat. 1260. On October 17, 1991, respondent and his attorney asked to meet with the prosecutor to discuss the possibility of cooperating with the Government. At the beginning of the meeting, the prosecutor informed respondent that he had no obligation to talk, but that if he wanted to cooperate, he would have to be completely truthful. As a condition of proceeding with the discussion, the prosecutor indicated that the respondent would have to agree that any statements he made could be used to impeach any contradictory testimony he might give at trial if it went that far. Respondent conversed with his counsel and agreed to proceed under the prosecutor’s conditions. The respondent admitted to knowing that the package he attempted to sell to the undercover cop did contain methamphetamine. Respondent claimed that he did not know Shuster was manufacturing methamphetamine at his residence and later confessed that he did know of Shuster manufacturing methamphetamine in his residence. Respondent minimized his role in Shuster’s methamphetamine operation by claiming that he had not visited Shuster’s residence for at least a week before his arrest. The government showed the respondent surveillance evidence showing that his car was at Shuster’s residence the day before the arrest. The meeting ended on the basis that the respondent failed to provide completely truthful information. Respondent was tried on the methamphetamine charges and took the stand at his own defense. He maintained that he was not involved in the methamphetamine trafficking and he had thought Shuster was using his home laboratory to make plastic explosives for the CIA. He denied knowing that the package he delivered to the
April 24, 2013
Plea Bargaining
United States, Petitioner VS Gary Mazzanato (93-1340), 513 U.S. 196
(1995)
Brief: Respondent was arrested and charged with possession of methamphetamine with the intent to distribute, in violation of 84 Stat. 1260. On October 17, 1991, respondent and his attorney asked to meet with the prosecutor to discuss the possibility of cooperating with the Government. At the beginning of the meeting, the prosecutor informed respondent that he had no obligation to talk, but that if he wanted to cooperate, he would have to be completely truthful. As a condition of proceeding with the discussion, the prosecutor indicated that the respondent would have to agree that any statements he made could be used to impeach any contradictory testimony he might give at trial if it went that far. Respondent conversed with his counsel and agreed to proceed under the prosecutor’s conditions. The respondent admitted to knowing that the package he attempted to sell to the undercover cop did contain methamphetamine. Respondent claimed that he did not know Shuster was manufacturing methamphetamine at his residence and later confessed that he did know of Shuster manufacturing methamphetamine in his residence. Respondent minimized his role in Shuster’s methamphetamine operation by claiming that he had not visited Shuster’s residence for at least a week before his arrest. The government showed the respondent surveillance evidence showing that his car was at Shuster’s residence the day before the arrest. The meeting ended on the basis that the respondent failed to provide completely truthful information. Respondent was tried on the methamphetamine charges and took the stand at his own defense. He maintained that he was not involved in the methamphetamine trafficking and he had thought Shuster was using his home laboratory to make plastic explosives for the CIA. He denied knowing that the package he delivered to the