United States v. Harris (2009)

United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida · 2009 · Evidence

657 F. Supp. 2d 1267 (N.D. Fla. 2009)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidenceRule 410Plea discussionsSuppressionFed. R. Evid. 410Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(f)plea negotiationssubjective expectation

Facts

After cocaine was found in the apartment area where Harris had been living, Harris contacted Agent Mike Ward through a former task-force contact because he feared prosecution and wanted to negotiate. Harris told Ward he wanted to cooperate but did not want to incriminate himself unless he could avoid federal indictment; Ward said that if Harris became a witness, his statements could not be used against him and he would not face serious jail time or federal indictment. Harris then disclosed incriminating information about the Reeves brothers, signed a confidential informant agreement, and performed controlled buys and debriefings that helped the task force build a federal case. Later, the United States indicted Harris on drug conspiracy charges and relied in part on the statements made during that initial bargain.

Issue

Were Harris's statements to Agent Ward inadmissible under Rule 11(f) and Rule 410 as statements made during plea discussions, even though Ward was not an attorney for the prosecuting authority? More specifically, did Harris actually and reasonably believe he was negotiating a plea-type bargain under the totality of the circumstances?

Rule

To determine whether a discussion is an inadmissible plea negotiation, the court must examine the totality of the circumstances under the Robertson two-part test: first, whether the accused had an actual subjective expectation of negotiating a plea at the time of the discussion; and second, whether that expectation was reasonable under the objective circumstances. The inquiry does not turn solely on whether the government negotiator had actual authority to make a plea bargain or whether the discussion was with a prosecutor rather than a law-enforcement officer.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Jacksonville, Malik Turner called a county narcotics detective after hearing that officers had searched his cousin's garage. Malik said he would identify a larger trafficking ring only if he could avoid federal charges, and the detective replied that he could not personally promise anything but that if Malik cooperated as a witness, his statements would not be used against him and he would not be federally indicted. Malik then described his own role in prior cocaine deliveries.

If the prosecution later offers Malik's statements against him in a federal case, how should the court most likely rule?

Explanation. The governing test asks whether Malik actually subjectively expected to negotiate a plea-type bargain and whether that expectation was objectively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances. The officer's non-prosecutor status is not dispositive. Here Malik expressly sought a concession on federal charges before incriminating himself, and the detective encouraged that expectation by assuring him his statements would not be used and he would avoid federal indictment. Under the majority's reasoning, those are protected plea discussions.