(1) When the government promises something in a verbal plea agreement, but then then allegedly breaks that promise -- and admits as much -- you're not bound to your part of the deal (e.g., your guilty plea). The Supreme Court said so, pretty much unanimously. (Some justices would make it a constitutional rule, some differ on the particular remedy, etc.)
(2) When the government promises something in a verbal plea agreement, but then allegedly breaks that promise -- and admits as much -- you're not bound to your part of the deal (e.g., your guilty plea), even if you said at the rote plea hearing (i.e., when you pled guilty) that there was no such promise. That's Ninth Circuit precedent.
(3) When the government promises something in a verbal plea agreement, but then allegedly breaks that promise -- but the government factually denies that it did so -- you are bound to your part of the deal (e.g., your guilty plea), if you said at the rote plea hearing (i.e., when you pled guilty) that there was no such promise. That's yesterday's opinion by Judge Nguyen.
One of these things is unlike the other. Logically, (3) is inconsistent with (1) and (2). At least if, in fact, the government broke it's promise.
If, in fact, the government made and then broke its promise, you should be allowed to withdraw your plea (if you relied on the promise, anyway). That's the lesson of (1) and (2). And (2) shows that this is the rule even when, during the rote plea hearing, you said that there were "no promises" made to you.
By contrast, if, in fact, the government didn't make the alleged promise, you shouldn't be allowed to withdraw your plea. That much is obvious.
Whether the government bothers to admit its breach shouldn't matter in the slightest. What matters is what, in fact, it did. If it made the promise and breached it, that's one thing. If it either didn't make the promise or didn't breach it, that's another. It's irrational for the rule to be "If the government breaks a promise and admits it, they're stuck to the promise, but if the government breaks a promise but tells a lie and denies it, they're not stuck to the promise. A government of laws, not men, isn't supposed to work that way.
That's why we have factfinders. To find the facts. Defendant and his lawyers say the government made a promise. The prosecution says it didn't. Okay. You have a hearing and find out who's telling the truth and then go from there.
You don't say: "Oh, well, one side says one thing, another side says another, so whatchagonnado?"
At least not until cases like this one.
