## Facts

- Christopher I. Udeagu was federally charged with heroin importation and possession with intent to distribute.
- Udeagu pleaded guilty to one count of illegal importation of heroin during a Rule 11 plea proceeding.
- During the plea allocution, Udeagu made sworn, on-the-record admissions about his involvement, with counsel present.
- Udeagu later moved to withdraw the guilty plea and asserted innocence.
- The district court granted the motion and vacated the guilty plea.
- Anticipating trial, Udeagu moved in limine to bar the government from introducing (1) the fact of the guilty plea and its withdrawal and (2) his allocution statements, including for impeachment if he testified.

## Issues

1. Whether the prosecution may use a defendant’s withdrawn guilty plea at a later trial, including for impeachment.
2. Whether the prosecution may use incriminating statements made during a Rule 11 plea allocution for impeachment after the plea is withdrawn, given Federal Rule of Evidence 410 and then-applicable Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(e)(6).

## Decision

- The court granted the motion in limine.
- The government was barred from introducing evidence that Udeagu had pleaded guilty and later withdrew the plea.
- The government was barred from using Udeagu’s Rule 11 plea-allocution admissions to impeach him if he testified.
- The court recognized only the narrow, rule-based exceptions permitting use of such statements (e.g., perjury or false-statement prosecutions meeting specified conditions).

## Legal Principles

- Federal Rule of Evidence 410 and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(e)(6) bar admission, against the defendant, of a guilty plea later withdrawn.
- Those rules also bar admission, against the defendant, of statements made during a Rule 11 proceeding on a plea that was later withdrawn.
- The exclusion applies to impeachment use at trial, not merely to use as substantive proof.
- Plea-related statements may be admissible only under narrow exceptions stated in the rules, including use in a prosecution for perjury or false statement when the statement was made under oath, on the record, and with counsel present.

## Conclusion

The court held that, after a guilty plea is withdrawn, neither the fact of the withdrawn plea nor the defendant’s Rule 11 allocution admissions may be used against the defendant at the subsequent trial for impeachment, except within the limited exceptions expressly allowed by Rule 410 and Rule 11(e)(6).


United States v. Udeagu, 110 F.R.D. 172 (E.D.N.Y. 1986)