So I know that an "Offer to Plead Guilty" will be held inadmissible against a D in a pending criminal or subsequent civil case. However is a "plea of guilty" inadmissible? Or is it admissible as a "Party Admission" under the hearsay exception?

Please please please someone clarify!!

thanks:)

"Offers to plead guilty, or to plead nolo contendere to a crime are generally inadmissible under FRE 410, as are actual guilty pleas which are later withdrawn, and all statements made during plea negotiations. The public policy motivation is to encourage criminal defendants to plead guilty to their crimes.

The inadmissibility of such matters may, however be waived by the criminal defendant. It is therefore a common practice for prosecutors drawing up plea deals to include terms requiring the defendant to agree that statements made in the course of plea negotiations may be used to impeach the testimony of that defendant, if they later change their story."

Quoted from Wikipedia

During a plea bargaining process, the guilty plea is inadmissible as it is an unreliable admission that has a prejudicial effect on the opportunity of the defendant to get a fair trial.

An admission by a party can be used only to prove the existence of the fact admitted and to impeach the credibility of the party. An admission by a witness can be introduced as evidence only to discredit the witness's testimony.

1153. Evidence of a plea of guilty, later withdrawn, or of an offer
to plead guilty to the crime charged or to any other crime, made by
the defendant in a criminal action is inadmissible in any action or
in any proceeding of any nature, including proceedings before
agencies, commissions, boards, and tribunals.


On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 8:56 PM, <

Hi

A plea of guilty that is NOT withdrawn is admissible against the defendant in subsequent litigation

I always tried to remember that even if something might not be admissible for use substantively, it is often easier to use it as impeachment, especially if the defendant is lying and you introduce it to show that.

The example I remember is that statements ruled inadmissible under Miranda for use substantively against the def CAN be used as impeachment against the def when he lies and says the opposite is true. Just because Miranda invalidates it substantively doesn't mean it's completely inadmissible.

Evidence is hard so don't get discouraged!