## Facts

- Amanda Mitchell was indicted in federal court for, among other charges, conspiracy to distribute five or more kilograms of cocaine.
- Mitchell pleaded guilty but expressly reserved the right to contest at sentencing the drug quantity attributable to her under the conspiracy count.
- During the plea colloquy, the court advised Mitchell of the applicable mandatory minimums (including a higher minimum if five kilograms were proved) and explained that a guilty plea waives the right to remain silent at trial.
- At sentencing, multiple witnesses (including codefendants) testified that Mitchell sold cocaine regularly over an extended period in amounts that, if credited, exceeded five kilograms.
- Mitchell did not testify or present evidence at sentencing; her counsel argued the reliable evidence supported a far smaller drug quantity.
- The district court ruled that Mitchell’s guilty plea eliminated her right to remain silent about details of the offense at sentencing and treated her silence as a factor supporting reliance on the government’s witnesses.
- Based on its drug-quantity finding, the court imposed the mandatory minimum ten-year sentence; the court of appeals affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether a federal guilty plea waives the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination at sentencing as to offense-related facts.
2. Whether a sentencing court may draw an adverse inference from a defendant’s silence when determining facts about the offense that affect the severity of the sentence.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for resentencing.
- A guilty plea does not waive the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination at the sentencing phase.
- A sentencing court may not draw an adverse inference from the defendant’s silence in determining facts about the circumstances and details of the crime that bear on the sentence.

## Legal Principles

- The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination can apply through sentencing when the defendant still faces a real risk that compelled or penalized testimony could increase punishment.
- Pleading guilty does not, by itself, make the defendant a “witness” for Fifth Amendment waiver purposes with respect to disputed offense details at sentencing.
- The rule forbidding adverse inferences from a criminal defendant’s failure to testify applies to sentencing factfinding on offense conduct that affects punishment.
- Although adverse inferences from silence may be permitted in civil matters, criminal sentencing cannot treat silence as substantive evidence to resolve contested offense facts.

## Conclusion

The Court held that defendants who plead guilty retain the Fifth Amendment privilege at sentencing regarding offense-related facts, and sentencing courts may not use a defendant’s silence to support adverse factual findings that increase punishment.


Mitchell v. United States, 526 U.S. 314 (1999)