UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. RICHARD LEE ADAMS
United States Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, Floyd, Filed Feb. 19, 2016,
Plea Agreement – A proper showing of “actual innocence” is sufficient to satisfy the “miscarriage of justice” prong that will overcome waiver of right to appeal

Weak arguments stemming from equity rather than logic and creating a precedential conundrum for future courts to wade through is nothing new, but I found the result here to be more interesting than the path taken to get there.

In the instant case, the defendant pled to a mutual agreement of guilty on three counts in exchange for a dismissal of five counts.

The defendant waived his right to appeal, but appealed anyway on “actual innocence.” The Court granted relief, in effect holding that “even if you’ve waived your right to appeal, we’ll hear your appeal if we consider your appeal and find it to have merit.”

And so the Government, which bargained for 3 convictions and 5 dismissals, ended up with 2 convictions.

And the defendant, who bargained for 3 convictions and 5 dismissals, ended up with 2 convictions.

A plea agreement is “essentially a contract between an accused and the government” and is therefore subject to interpretation under the principles of contract law. And, as is the entire point of contract law, parties to the agreement should receive the benefit of their bargain.

But the Court in the instant case went a different way, noting that the “government asked us to reinstate the dismissed charges of the indictment. We decline to do so.”

The Court didn’t explain this, other than to rail against the Government for seeking to punish the defendant for exercising his rights. And, while it is improper for the government to punish someone for exercising a right, it is likewise improper to give someone the benefit of a bargain they have not made or which they made and breached.