The Perlam doctrine; Fed Rule of Evidence 410; A criminal investigation for sex crimes, a civil lawsuit by the victim; Ipse Dixit, this case has it all!
Look! Up in the sky. It's a bird. It's a plane. It's a decision by Judges Pryor and Martin with special guest judge Charlene Honeywell (MDFL) sitting by designation!
The upshot of lengthy (and pre$umably expensive) litigation is that plea negotiations between the prosecution and the defense are NOT privileged to third parties (the government cannot enter the negotiations into evidence in a criminal case). Read this case, and beware when corresponding with prosecutors, especially pre-indictment when the 6th amendment right to counsel does not attach:
Although plea negotiations are vital to the functioning of
the criminal justice system, a prosecutor and target of a criminal investigation do not enjoy a relationship of confidence and trust when they negotiate. (Rumpole says: "trust"? Tell us something we don't know. Duh. ) Their adversarial relationship, unlike the confidential relationship of a doctor and patient or attorney and client, warrants no privilege beyond the terms of Rule 410.
You (defense) don't have a "cozy" relationship with the prosecutor. Whatever you discuss, send, email, text, or tweet them, they can disclose to other parties if requested (and approved by Judge Marra.) The only privilege you have is against them entering into evidence in their case in chief against your client. And we're sure government lawyers are hard at work on wiggling around that one. Perhaps the "if we don't admit it we'll lose" doctrine?
"ANTHILLS OF SNITCHES"
We came across this opinion of Judge Roettger's in U.S. v. Sepe, 1 F. Supp.2d 1372 (S.D., Fla, 1998) and we thought part of it bears repeating: