## Facts

- Federal agents arrested a cooperating witness after discovering a methamphetamine laboratory; the witness arranged a drug sale with Gary Mezzanatto through a pager call.
- At a meeting set up for the sale, Mezzanatto produced about one pound of methamphetamine and was arrested.
- Mezzanatto was charged with possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).
- Mezzanatto and counsel requested a meeting with prosecutors to discuss cooperation and a possible plea agreement.
- Before the meeting proceeded, the prosecutor required Mezzanatto to agree that statements made during the discussion could be used to impeach him at trial if he later testified inconsistently.
- After consulting with counsel, Mezzanatto agreed to the impeachment-use waiver and made inculpatory statements during the discussion.
- Plea discussions failed to produce an agreement.
- At trial, Mezzanatto testified inconsistently with his plea-discussion statements; the government used those statements to impeach him, and he was convicted.

## Issues

1. Whether a criminal defendant may, in advance, knowingly and voluntarily waive the inadmissibility protections of Federal Rule of Evidence 410 and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(e)(6) so that plea-discussion statements may be used to impeach the defendant at trial.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and upheld enforcement of the waiver.
- The Court held that an agreement waiving the plea-statement rules’ exclusionary provisions is valid and enforceable absent an affirmative indication that the waiver was unknowing or involuntary.
- Because Mezzanatto consulted counsel and did not claim his waiver was involuntary or unknowing, the government could use his plea-discussion statements to impeach his inconsistent trial testimony.
- The conviction was reinstated.

## Legal Principles

- Legal rights, including evidentiary protections, are generally subject to waiver by voluntary agreement unless clearly made nonwaivable by text or unmistakable policy.
- Rules excluding plea-discussion statements “against the defendant” establish a default inadmissibility rule that a defendant may relinquish through a knowing, voluntary waiver.
- The existence of specific enumerated exceptions in an evidentiary rule does not, by itself, imply that the defendant is barred from waiving the rule’s protection.
- Claims that waiver will chill plea bargaining or invite prosecutorial abuse do not justify a categorical ban on waivers; courts may examine, case by case, whether a waiver resulted from fraud or coercion.
- The holding approved waiver at least for impeachment use of plea-discussion statements when the defendant later testifies inconsistently.

## Conclusion

The Court held that a defendant may knowingly and voluntarily waive the protections that generally bar admission of plea-discussion statements, permitting their use to impeach inconsistent trial testimony absent evidence the waiver was unknowing or coerced.


United States v. Mezzanatto, 513 U.S. 196 (1995)