United States v. Mezzanatto

Supreme Court of the United States · 1995 · Evidence

513 U.S. 196 (1995)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidencePlea discussionsWaiverFederal Rule of Evidence 410Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(e)(6)plea statementsimpeachmentknowing and voluntary

Facts

After respondent was arrested on a methamphetamine charge, he and his attorney asked to meet with the prosecutor to discuss possible cooperation. The prosecutor agreed, but only on the condition that any statements respondent made during the meeting could be used to impeach him if he later testified inconsistently at trial; after consulting counsel, respondent agreed. During the meeting, respondent made statements admitting knowledge that the package contained methamphetamine, but the meeting ended when the Government concluded he was not being completely truthful. At trial, respondent testified inconsistently with those statements, and over objection the prosecution used the plea-discussion statements to impeach him.

Issue

May a criminal defendant waive the exclusionary protections of Federal Rule of Evidence 410 and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(e)(6) so that statements made during plea discussions may be used to impeach contradictory trial testimony?

Rule

Absent some affirmative indication that Congress intended to preclude waiver, statutory and evidentiary protections are presumptively waivable. Accordingly, an agreement to waive the exclusionary provisions of Federal Rule of Evidence 410 and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(e)(6) is valid and enforceable if it is entered into knowingly and voluntarily; the proper safeguard is case-by-case inquiry into fraud or coercion, not a per se ban on waiver.

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 Phoenix, federal prosecutors agreed to meet with Daniel Cruz about a possible cooperation deal only if he signed a written proffer stating that any statements he made could be used to impeach him if he later testified inconsistently. After consulting his lawyer, Daniel signed, denied at trial that he knew a shipment contained narcotics, and then the prosecutor sought to confront him with his contrary proffer statements.

Should the court admit the proffer statements for impeachment?

Explanation. The majority held that Rule 410 and Rule 11(e)(6) protections are presumptively waivable absent an affirmative indication that Congress intended to preclude waiver. A defendant may waive those exclusionary protections if the waiver is knowing and voluntary. On these facts, Daniel consulted counsel and agreed to impeachment use, so the waiver is enforceable.