People v. Eubanks, 159 N.E.3d 508

In 2010 Eubanks was charged with first-degree murder and aggravated battery with a firearm for shootings that left two victims injured/killed. He initially denied involvement.
On April 19, 2011, Eubanks gave a videotaped, inculpatory statement to detectives in the presence of his lawyer after the State and defense had discussed a plea deal; the State watched from outside the room.
Before the tape, defense counsel testified the parties had agreed that Eubanks would receive a 35‑year recommendation in exchange for a truthful statement and cooperation (including potential testimony against co‑defendants).
Eubanks pled guilty, later withdrew the plea, proceeded to a stipulated bench trial where the videotaped statement was admitted, was convicted of first‑degree murder, and sentenced to 50 years.
On postconviction review Eubanks argued his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to suppress the videotaped statement under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 402(f) (plea‑discussion protection); at a third‑stage evidentiary hearing the court found the statement was made after the plea agreement was reached (a term of the deal) and thus admissible; the appellate court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a defendant's statement made after a plea agreement is reached but before entry of plea is protected by Ill. S. Ct. R. 402(f) (inadmissible as plea discussion)	The State: once a plea agreement is reached plea negotiations end; statements made pursuant to an agreed plea term are not "plea discussions" and are admissible.	Eubanks: his videotaped confession was made in furtherance of plea discussions (or as a condition precedent to the deal) and thus barred by Rule 402(f).	Court: Affirmed the statement was made after the plea deal was reached and was a term (not a condition precedent) — Rule 402(f) did not bar admission.
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress the statement under Rule 402(f)	The State: no deficient performance because the statement was admissible.	Eubanks: counsel rendered ineffective assistance by not moving to suppress an inadmissible plea‑related statement.	Court: Trial court’s credibility findings not manifestly erroneous; counsel not found ineffective — petition denied and conviction affirmed.

People v. Rivera, 2013 IL 112467 (explaining Rule 402(f) purpose and the plea‑discussion inquiry)
People v. Friedman, 79 Ill. 2d 341 (encouraging negotiated dispositions; rationale for excluding plea discussions)
People v. Saunders, 135 Ill. App. 3d 594 (post‑agreement statements are not "plea discussions" and are admissible)
People v. Connery, 296 Ill. App. 3d 384 (statements made after plea acceptance/judgment not covered by Rule 402(f))
United States v. Mezzanatto, 513 U.S. 196 (discussing Federal Rule of Evidence 410 and plea‑bargaining policy)
United States v. Watkins, 85 F.3d 498 (federal circuit holding statements made after plea agreement reached are admissible)
United States v. Hare, 49 F.3d 447 (same)
United States v. Jones, 469 F.3d 563 (statements made pursuant to plea agreements are not "in the course of plea discussions" and thus admissible)