Judicial Finding Required Before Admission of Withdrawn Plea Statements

Introduction

United States v. Wilson (10th Cir. May 19, 2025) addresses whether a federal defendant’s withdrawn guilty-plea statements may be used against him at trial without a prior, explicit judicial finding that he breached the plea agreement. Ke’Andre Dewayne Wilson had attempted to plead guilty to a drug conspiracy charge that carried no mandatory minimum. At the plea hearing, the district court found the factual basis insufficient, rejected the plea, and the government withdrew the lesser charge. Facing the original indictment—now carrying a ten-year mandatory minimum—Wilson went to trial. Over his objection, the government introduced the plea agreement and the plea petition into evidence without the court ever ruling that Wilson had breached its terms. Following a mixed verdict, Wilson was sentenced to the mandatory minimum. On appeal, he challenged the use of his plea statements and documents absent a proper court finding of breach.

Summary of the Judgment

The Tenth Circuit held that:

Rule 410 and Rule 11(f) ordinarily bar admission of withdrawn plea statements and plea-negotiation materials.
A defendant’s waiver of those protections in a plea agreement becomes effective only if the court first determines—based on evidence and express findings—that the defendant materially breached the agreement.
Here, no hearing was held, and no express factual or legal finding of breach was made before the government introduced the plea documents at trial.
Because the government failed to show the error was harmless, the panel reversed Wilson’s conviction and remanded for a new trial.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Kercheval v. United States (1927): Established that withdrawn guilty pleas cannot be used against a defendant at trial.
United States v. Mitchell (10th Cir. 2011): Reinforced Rule 410’s bar on using plea negotiations and withdrawn pleas.
Guzman v. United States (10th Cir. 2003): Held that courts must hold a hearing and make a judicial finding of breach before the government is relieved of its promises in a plea agreement.
United States v. Cudjoe (10th Cir. 2008): Emphasized that unilateral government declarations of breach are insufficient without a court ruling.
United States v. Calabrese (10th Cir. 1981): Explained that if facts relevant to breach are undisputed, the court may resolve the legal issue without a hearing; if disputed, a hearing is required.

Legal Reasoning

Federal Rule of Evidence 410 and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(f) bar the admission of withdrawn guilty-plea statements and plea-negotiation materials. A plea agreement often contains a waiver of these protections, but that waiver “springs to life” only after the court finds that the defendant has breached the agreement.

The court applied a two-step test to determine breach:

Contractual Promise: Identify the obligations the defendant undertook in the plea agreement (e.g., to admit certain facts under oath).
Reasonable Understanding: Ask what the defendant reasonably believed he had to say or do to perform those obligations.

Here, Wilson admitted in writing—and under oath—the five discrete factual admissions the government included in the agreement. When the court questioned him, the government simply had Wilson reiterate those same admissions. He did not attempt to withdraw or repudiate them. The plea agreement defined breach as (1) the court “determines” a violation of its terms or (2) authorizes withdrawal of the plea. Neither occurred. The court correctly rejected the plea for lack of a factual basis, but it did not find a breach. Consequently, the government’s waiver of Rule 410 and Rule 11(f) was never triggered. Admission of the plea papers was therefore erroneous.

Harmless-Error and Prejudice

Because the error did not implicate a constitutional right, the government bore the burden of proving it harmless. The court noted:

The government’s case against Wilson was thin—his mere presence at the autobody shop, his departure in a vehicle, and the confidential source’s speculation of a “lookout” role.
By contrast, the plea-agreement evidence was highly prejudicial: a jury is inclined to believe a defendant’s prior admission of guilt.
The mixed verdict (acquittal on one count, conviction on the conspiracy count) strongly suggested the plea evidence tipped the scales.

The government could not show beyond a reasonable doubt that the admission of withdrawn plea materials did not affect substantial rights. Accordingly, reversal and a new trial were ordered.

Impact

United States v. Wilson reinforces the vital role of Rule 410 and Rule 11(f) in protecting guilty-plea confidentiality and the integrity of plea bargaining. It compels courts to:

Demand express findings before admitting withdrawn plea statements or negotiations.
Scrutinize government requests to invoke waiver provisions in plea agreements.
Guard against unilateral government declarations of breach.

Practitioners negotiating and litigating plea agreements must ensure that any breach language is crystal clear and that courts are asked to rule definitively on any alleged violation before plea materials see the light of day at trial.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Plea Agreement: A contract between a defendant and the government in which the defendant agrees to plead guilty (often to lesser charges) in exchange for sentence concessions or the dismissal of higher charges.
Federal Rule of Evidence 410: Prohibits use of withdrawn guilty-plea discussions, plea offers, and plea-hearing statements against the defendant in a later proceeding.
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(f): Cross-references Rule 410 and governs the admissibility of plea statements under criminal procedure.
Harmless Error: An appellate test asking whether an error affected the outcome of the trial. If not, the conviction stands; if yes, reversal is required.
Mixed Verdict: A jury returns guilty on some counts and not‐guilty on others. Such a verdict can signal that certain evidence carried undue weight in the conviction decision.

Conclusion

United States v. Wilson underscores that confidential plea negotiations and withdrawn pleas remain sacrosanct unless a court—after affording the defendant due process—determines a material breach of plea-agreement duties. Trial courts must plainly identify and put on the record any factual findings supporting a breach before allowing the government to invoke a waiver of Rule 410 or Rule 11(f). This decision fortifies the fairness of the plea-bargaining system, preserves defendants’ reliance interests, and ensures that juries decide cases on admissible evidence, not on rehashed admissions from scrapped plea deals.