United States v. Davila
664 F.3d 1355
11th Cir.2011Background
- Davila was convicted of conspiracy to defraud the United States by obtaining false tax refunds, 18 U.S.C. § 286.
- At an in camera hearing in February 2010, a magistrate judge told Davila that there may be no viable defenses and discussed benefits of pleading guilty, including a three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility.
- Davila pleaded guilty in May 2010 before the district court, and was sentenced to 115 months' imprisonment on November 15, 2010.
- Davila challenged on appeal that the magistrate judge's comments amounted to improper participation in plea discussions and violated Rule 11(c)(1).
- The panel reviews for plain error given Davila failed to object to the alleged Rule 11 violation in district court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the magistrate judge's comments amount to Rule 11(c)(1) participation? | Davila argues the judge impermissibly participated in plea discussions by commenting on defenses and the weight of the evidence. | The United States contends any error was not reversible or lacked prejudice under the standard applicable to Rule 11 violations. | Yes; judicial participation occurred, requiring vacatur of the conviction. |
| Should the conviction be vacated and remanded despite no objection to the Rule 11 issue? | Davila seeks vacatur to preserve the integrity of proceedings. | The government contends ordinary remedies suffice or no automatic vacatur is required. | Conviction vacated and remanded with reinstatement of not guilty plea and reassignment to another judge; magistrate disqualified. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Moriarty, 429 F.3d 1012 (11th Cir. 2005) (plain-error review for Rule 11 violations)
- United States v. Johnson, 89 F.3d 778 (11th Cir. 1996) (judicial participation is barred; bright-line rule)
- United States v. Corbitt, 996 F.2d 1132 (11th Cir. 1993) (court personnel should not participate in plea discussions)
- United States v. Casallas, 59 F.3d 1173 (11th Cir. 1995) (coercive effect of comments on plea negotiations)
- United States v. Diaz, 138 F.3d 1359 (11th Cir. 1998) (court comments about evidence undermine plea discussions)