;
Any statement made in the course of plea negotiations resulting in a guilty plea that has not been withdrawn may be used as impeachment in a subsequent trial.{footnote}United States v. Mathis, 550 F.2d 180 (4th Cir. 1976); United States v. Benson, 640 F.2d 136 (8th Cir. 1981)(statements made connection with guilty plea not withdrawn held admissible).
{/footnote}

Offers to plead guilty, and statements made during plea negotiations are inadmissible against the defendant who made the statement if they do not result in a guilty plea,{footnote}United States v. Grant, 622 F.2d 308 (8th Cir. 1980).

Oregon Stat. 135.435.{/footnote} or if they result in a guilty plea which is subsequently withdrawn.{footnote}FRE 410; Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(e)(6); Cal § 1153. 

Check 59 ALR3d 441 (statements made in course of plea bargaining).{/footnote}  Whether the communication should be deemed plea negotiations is determined by the totality of the circumstances,{footnote}United States v. Serna, 799 F.2d 842 (2d Cir. 1986){/footnote} including the defendant’s subjective understanding.{footnote}United States v. Robertson, 582 F.2d 1356 (5th Cir. 1978).{/footnote}  Ordinarily, only discussions with a prosecutor or someone acting on behalf of a prosecutor will be considered plea negotiations.{footnote}United States v. Perez-Franco, 873 F.2d 455 (1st Cir. 1989; United States v. Grant, 622 F.2d 308 (8th Cir. 1980).

But see United States v. Herman, 544 F.2d 791 (5th Cir. 1977)(postal inpector????)(test is whether defendant believed government official had authority to negotiate plea).{/footnote}

Impeachment.  Statements which are inadmissible under the above rule may not be used as impeachment evidence.{footnote}United States v. Mezzanatto, 115 S. Ct. 797, 801 n. 2 (1995)(dictum); United States v. Lawson, 683 F.2d 688, 693 (2d Cir. 1982).{/footnote}

Perjury Prosecution.  Statements made during plea negotiations not resulting in a guilty plea, or resulting in a guilty plea later withdrawn, are admissible in prosecutions for false statement or perjury, where the statement was made under oath, on the record and in the presence of his or her attorney.{footnote}FRE 410; Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(e)(6)(D).

Contra Oregon Rule of Evidence 410 (no such exception).{/footnote}

Other Statement Admitted.  Statements made during plea negotiations not resulting in a guilty plea, or resulting in a guilty plea later withdrawn, are admissible where another statement from the plea negotiations has been admitted and fairness requires that the offered statement also be admitted.{footnote}FRE 410; Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(e)(6)(D).

Contra Oregon Rule of Evidence 410 (no such exception).{/footnote} 
Waiver.  An agreement by a defendant that any statements made during negotiations will be admissible as impeachment in the event no plea is agreed upon is enforceable.{footnote} [3252]  United States v. Mezzanatto, 115 S. Ct. 797 (1995).

See E. Dahlin, Note, Will Plea Bargaining Survive United States v. Mezzanatto?, 74 Or. L. Rev. 1365 (Winter 1995).{/footnote}

Offered by Defendant.  FRE 410 does not adress whether a defendant may offer statements made in the course of plea negotiations.{footnote}But see 2 Christopher B. Mueller & Laird C. Kirkpatrick, Federal Evidence § 149, at 167 (2d ed. 1994)(suggesting courts would exclude such statements as a matter of policy).{/footnote}

Information Gained from Plea Negotiations.  It has been held that even where statements made during failed plea negotiations themselves are inadmissible, the defendant may be questioned based on information gained from the negotiations, without proving an independent source for the information.{footnote}State v. Aldridge, 33 Or. App. 37, 575 P.2d 675 (1978)(defendant could be asked whether he had been convicted of crime, despite objection that prosecution learned of convicition only through negotiations).{/footnote}

Judicial Notice

Related Articles

BRIEFS;  COURT RECORDS; GUILTY PLEAS; IMPEACHMENT; JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS; VERDICTS.