Criminal Procedure – Double jeopardy

Listen to this article

U.S. Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

Criminal

Criminal Procedure – Double jeopardy

The defendant failed to show that a prior plea agreement resolving money laundering charges barred the current mortgage fraud charges.

“Brown’s affidavit thus posits the existence of a contractual provision beyond those incorporated into the written terms of the plea agreement. Yet the agreement itself states that it represents the entirety of the parties’ agreement, and not only the government, but Brown himself, assured Judge Gottschall at the change-of-plea hearing that no other promises had been made to Brown in order to induce him to plead guilty. Brown’s affidavit is thus in direct contradiction to what he represented to the court, and what Judge Gottschall relied upon, in evaluating and accepting his guilty plea. Avoiding after-the-fact accusations that an undocumented agreement has been breached is exactly why judges ask the parties to confirm that there are no agreements beyond those committed to writing or otherwise recited in open court. Treating Brown’s affidavit as sufficient to commence an inquiry would undermine the interests in candor and finality served by the court’s inquiry into undisclosed promises.”

Affirmed.

12-3290 U.S. v. Brown

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Lefkow, J., Rovner, J.

7th Circuit Digest, Criminal Digest, Criminal Procedure Digest

Full Text