October Term 2001 · Docket 01-595
Does the Constitution require prosecutors to disclose all evidence before a guilty plea?
The government argues the Ninth Circuit created an unwarranted rule. The defendant claims due process demands full disclosure of materials.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
The government contends the Ninth Circuit rule lacks constitutional support.
The defendant relies on prior Supreme Court precedent to support disclosure.
The government illustrates the rule's flaws using the specific facts of this case.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 29-41 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 29-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 19-13 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 19-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 13-43 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 13-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 21-25 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 21-25
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The dispute centers on whether the Due Process Clause mandates specific disclosures during guilty plea negotiations.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 29-41 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 29-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 19-13 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 19-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 13-43 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 13-43
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on April 24, 2002.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 21-25 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 21-25
What each side wants
The government seeks to overturn the Ninth Circuit's new rule.
The defendant seeks to enforce the disclosure requirement.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 29-41 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 29-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 19-13 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 19-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 13-43 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 13-43
What each side says
The government argues the rule is unworkable and solves a nonexistent problem.
The defendant argues the Due Process Clause requires disclosure of materials.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 29-41 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 29-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 19-13 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 19-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 13-43 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 13-43
What the justices asked
Chief Justice Rehnquist asked if the case was moot due to probation status.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 21-25 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 21-25
Why it matters
This case defines the scope of constitutional protections during guilty plea negotiations. It determines the balance between prosecutorial discretion and defendant rights.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 29-41 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 29-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 19-13 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 19-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 13-43 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 13-43
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 21-25 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 21-25
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 29-41 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 29-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 19-13 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 19-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 13-43 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 13-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 29-41 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 29-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 19-13 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 19-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 13-43 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 13-43
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.