U.S v Ruiz (2002) – FYS 100 – 34: The Rights of the Criminally Accused

Angela Ruiz possessed Marijuana in her luggage and was intercepted by immigration agents and arrested. Prosecutors offered her a “fast track” plea bargain meant to incentivize her to plea guilty through the offer of a reduced sentence. The two caveats, however, that came with the plea bargain were that she would waive her rights to a trial and appeal and that she would also waive the right to receive any impeachment information on any witnesses or informants and and any information supporting an affirmative defense should they go to trial. Ruiz refused to agree to waive her right to receive the information, opting to take her case to trial. During trial she pleaded guilty despite not accepting the plea agreement previously outlined, and stated that she did give a guilty plea and believed she should receive what was offered in the “fast track” plea. The district court did not see this reasoning to be logical and sentenced her to what would reasonably be given for an offense of this nature.

"I'm innocent. I've just never been able to pass up a good plea bargain." — “I’m innocent. I’ve just never been able to pass up a good plea bargain.”

The appellate court, however, agreed with Ruiz stating that all information about the trial must be given before a plea bargain is made in order to ensure the defendant gives a voluntary plea. The appellate court argued that since this “fast track” plea was intended to withhold information from Ruiz it was unconstitutional. The case was passed on to the Supreme Court who decided unanimously (9-0) that this “fast track” plea bargain was constitutional. Justice Breyer wrote the opinion and it focused on the fact that the case should have never actually made it to the appellate court as it was a violation of law. Breyer also stated that the Fifth and Sixth amendments provide a guarantee that a defendant should have the right to exculpatory impeachment evidence in a fair trial. Breyer reiterated that under a plea agreement such rights are not guaranteed as long as the defendant waives their rights knowingly. Under these pretenses the Court decided that the tactics used by prosecutors were, in fact, constitutional.

In my opinion I do find this to be constitutional, as Ruiz did know exactly what she was doing when she did not accept the terms of plea agreement. If she was allowed to simply deny the agreement and then accept it once she deemed it convenient it would make a mockery of the criminal justice system. If a defendant decides to deny a plea agreement, it cannot be possible that they can simply accept it once the trial appears to be out of their favor. I find it to be very fair that prosecutors can offer this “fast track” plea bargain, the courts are overburdened with cases and in this case it would have been difficult to prove her innocence, as the Marijuana was tangible evidence of her crime. I believe in this situation it would have been in Ruiz’s best interest to simply have accepted the terms of the plea bargain.

Daniel Jones says:

November 14, 2016 at 1:25 am

I agree that the fast track plea helps the guilty party majorly. It helps them, and the court. If the person knows that they are guilty there is little time wasted in the court when they take the fast track plea. This deal would’ve especially helped Ruiz’s I feel as if she would’ve been better off taking this deal from the jump. Attempting to maneuver around it and use it to her advantage when she wanted to hurt her in this case, as far as time in her sentence went.
Although I agreed that Fast Track Plea would help the guilty party and the court I don’t agree it is constitutional because it seems as if it varies case to case. So there fore two people who committed the same crime could have different sentences due to the fast track plea. Also the individuals knowledge on the law plays a huge role as well.

Kevin Kennedy says:

November 14, 2016 at 4:44 pm

I agree with Justin that this opinion is wrong, as I feel that the defendant is entitled to know all the evidence against them before making a decision. While it is hard for me to say if this is unconstitutional or not, since I do not have the same level of knowledge as the justices, it does seem to contradict other rulings the Court has made. In the majority opinion, Justice Breyer argues that imposing this kind of mandate on law enforcement would make it difficult to do their jobs. In my mind, this is similar to law enforcement’s response to the Miranda decision, saying that informing citizens of their rights may make it hard for police to effectively interrogate suspects. In the Miranda case, the Court ruled that it does not make it harder, since these are rights the defendant was entitled to already. I feel that the same ruling should be applied to this case, as I do not see how it would make it harder for police to do their job if the defendant would be given all the information related to their case. I do agree that it would backlog the Court system, but I do not think that this is a valid reason, as no one should accept a guilty plea just because the courts do not have time to hear their case. For me, it seems likely that this system is helping to incarcerate innocent people, as opposed to prosecuting the guilty ones.

Staton Whaley says:

November 14, 2016 at 5:46 pm

I concur that the court ruled the right way, and what happened was constitutional. Ruiz could have easily accepted the fast track deal then to receive what was offered. I think it’s important to point out that to offer a plea and allow it to be retracted or accepted whenever is convenient opposes the principle of the deal itself. I agree with you in that overall, the fast track plea bargaining system is very effective, shown by the vast majority of cases that are heard that way. Sometimes the guilty party may not receive the prosecutor’s reduced sentence because the judge doesn’t have to accept it, and sometimes innocent parties are pressured into taking guilty sentences because they can’t afford a lawyer or would rather not waste their time. This is when the system fails us, at the bottom of society, where it may seem easier to admit to something they haven’t committed, which contradicts our justice system in a way. I think this case highlights that even though this system might work well on a larger scale, there is always someone left unjust by these broad ranging policies.
By showing the defendant all the evidence beforehand, it would be another way to back up the already clogged court system. That amount of time would deter people to take the plea bargain and hugely increase the amount of time spent on plea bargains, making it a not so fast “fast track” system. The Court ruled constitutional and made sure to point out the contradictions to the principles of plea bargaining in this case, which are crucial to their decided verdict.