## Facts

- John H. Adamson was charged in Arizona state court with first-degree murder for the car-bomb killing of reporter Donald Bolles.
- After his first-degree murder trial began, Adamson entered a plea agreement to plead guilty to second-degree murder for a specified sentence.
- The agreement required Adamson to testify, upon the State’s request, against other participants in the murder.
- The agreement provided that if Adamson refused to testify, the agreement would be “null and void,” the original charge would be “automatically reinstated,” and the parties would return to their pre-agreement positions.
- The trial court accepted the plea and sentence; Adamson testified against codefendants, who were convicted of first-degree murder.
- The Arizona Supreme Court later reversed the codefendants’ convictions and ordered retrials.
- When asked to cooperate again, Adamson asserted his obligation ended at sentencing, refused to testify at pretrial proceedings, and invoked the Fifth Amendment.
- The State filed a new information charging Adamson again with first-degree murder.
- Adamson was tried, convicted of first-degree murder, and sentenced to death.

## Issues

1. Whether the Double Jeopardy Clause barred a subsequent first-degree murder prosecution after a second-degree murder conviction and sentence obtained through a plea agreement.
2. Whether Adamson’s refusal to testify at proceedings related to the codefendants’ retrials constituted a breach that permitted reinstatement of the original first-degree murder charge.
3. Whether the plea agreement operated as a valid waiver of any double jeopardy defense, even though it did not expressly use the words “double jeopardy.”

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and held that the first-degree murder prosecution did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause.
- The Court held that Adamson materially breached the plea agreement by refusing to testify when requested.
- The Court concluded that Adamson understood the agreement’s consequence that breach would nullify the plea and restore the original charge.
- The Court held that Adamson’s acceptance of reinstatement upon breach constituted an effective waiver of any double jeopardy defense to prosecution on the reinstated charge.
- The Court rejected the argument that Adamson’s later offer to testify cured the breach, holding the State could enforce the agreement’s remedial terms after the refusal.

## Legal Principles

- Plea agreements are enforceable according to their terms; when a defendant materially breaches a cooperation promise, the State may invoke contractual remedies specified in the agreement.
- A defendant may waive constitutional protections, including double jeopardy defenses, through a plea agreement when the record shows the defendant understood the consequences of breach.
- An agreement need not explicitly mention “double jeopardy” to effect a waiver if it clearly provides that breach restores exposure to the original charge.
- Assuming a lesser-included-offense relationship, a conviction on the lesser offense would ordinarily bar later prosecution on the greater offense, but that bar may be removed when the defendant’s breach triggers reinstatement under the plea agreement.

## Conclusion

Because Adamson’s plea agreement plainly provided that refusal to testify would void the bargain and automatically reinstate the original first-degree murder charge, his breach permitted Arizona to reprosecute him for first-degree murder without violating the Double Jeopardy Clause.


Ricketts v. Adamson, 483 U.S. 1 (1987)