{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "61",
    "document_number": "310-1",
    "date": "07/02/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 61 of 80\n\nAn entirely different situation arises when the decision not to prosecute is unconditional, is presented as absolute and final, or is announced in such a way that it induces the defendant to act in reliance thereupon. When a non-prosecution decision is conveyed in such a way, and when a defendant, having no indication to the contrary, detrimentally relies upon that decision, due process may warrant preclusion of the prosecution. Numerous state and federal courts have found that a defendant's detrimental reliance upon the government's assurances during the plea bargaining phase both implicates his due process rights and entitles him to enforcement even of unconsummated agreements. The cases are legion.23\n\nSee, e.g., State v. Francis, 424 P.3d 156, 160 (Utah 2017) (holding that, \"[w]hen a defendant has reasonably and detrimentally relied on a plea agreement, the State should not be able to withdraw a plea agreement just because it has not yet been presented to the district court\"); State v. Johnson, 360 S.W.3d 104, 115 (Ark. 2010) (holding that, \"when the State has entered into an agreement not to prosecute with a prospective defendant and the defendant has performed and acted to his detriment or prejudice in reliance upon that agreement, the government must be required to honor such an agreement.\"); People v. Rhoden, 89 Cal. Rptr.2d 819, 824 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 1999) (explaining \"unexecuted plea bargains generally do not involve constitutional rights absent detrimental reliance on the bargain\"); United States v. Streebing, 987 F.2d 368, 372-73 (6th Cir. 1993) (holding that the defendant had to demonstrate, inter alia, that he had relied upon the government's promise to his detriment before the promise would be enforceable); United States v. Savage, 978 F.2d 1136, 1138 (9th Cir. 1992) (explaining that a defendant's detrimental reliance is an exception to the general rule that defendants are not entitled to enforcement of unconsummated plea agreements); State v. Parkey, 471 N.W.2d 896, 898 (Iowa App. 1991) (finding that, in the absence of a showing that the defendant detrimentally relied upon an agreement with the prosecutor, dismissal was not warranted); Rowe v. Griffin, 676 F.2d 524, 528 (11th Cir. 1982) (stating that, when a promise induces a defendant to waive his Fifth Amendment rights by testifying or otherwise cooperating with the government to his detriment, due process requires that the prosecutor's promise be fulfilled); People v. Reagan, 235 N.W.2d 581, 587 (Mich. 1975) (noting that, where the defendant was prejudiced by submitting to a polygraph in exchange for an agreement that his prosecution would be dismissed, trial court erred in refusing to enforce the agreement).\n\n[J-100-2020] - 60\n\nDOJ-OGR-00004873",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 61 of 80",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "An entirely different situation arises when the decision not to prosecute is unconditional, is presented as absolute and final, or is announced in such a way that it induces the defendant to act in reliance thereupon. When a non-prosecution decision is conveyed in such a way, and when a defendant, having no indication to the contrary, detrimentally relies upon that decision, due process may warrant preclusion of the prosecution. Numerous state and federal courts have found that a defendant's detrimental reliance upon the government's assurances during the plea bargaining phase both implicates his due process rights and entitles him to enforcement even of unconsummated agreements. The cases are legion.23",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "See, e.g., State v. Francis, 424 P.3d 156, 160 (Utah 2017) (holding that, \"[w]hen a defendant has reasonably and detrimentally relied on a plea agreement, the State should not be able to withdraw a plea agreement just because it has not yet been presented to the district court\"); State v. Johnson, 360 S.W.3d 104, 115 (Ark. 2010) (holding that, \"when the State has entered into an agreement not to prosecute with a prospective defendant and the defendant has performed and acted to his detriment or prejudice in reliance upon that agreement, the government must be required to honor such an agreement.\"); People v. Rhoden, 89 Cal. Rptr.2d 819, 824 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 1999) (explaining \"unexecuted plea bargains generally do not involve constitutional rights absent detrimental reliance on the bargain\"); United States v. Streebing, 987 F.2d 368, 372-73 (6th Cir. 1993) (holding that the defendant had to demonstrate, inter alia, that he had relied upon the government's promise to his detriment before the promise would be enforceable); United States v. Savage, 978 F.2d 1136, 1138 (9th Cir. 1992) (explaining that a defendant's detrimental reliance is an exception to the general rule that defendants are not entitled to enforcement of unconsummated plea agreements); State v. Parkey, 471 N.W.2d 896, 898 (Iowa App. 1991) (finding that, in the absence of a showing that the defendant detrimentally relied upon an agreement with the prosecutor, dismissal was not warranted); Rowe v. Griffin, 676 F.2d 524, 528 (11th Cir. 1982) (stating that, when a promise induces a defendant to waive his Fifth Amendment rights by testifying or otherwise cooperating with the government to his detriment, due process requires that the prosecutor's promise be fulfilled); People v. Reagan, 235 N.W.2d 581, 587 (Mich. 1975) (noting that, where the defendant was prejudiced by submitting to a polygraph in exchange for an agreement that his prosecution would be dismissed, trial court erred in refusing to enforce the agreement).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "[J-100-2020] - 60",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00004873",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [
      "Utah",
      "Arkansas",
      "California",
      "Iowa",
      "Michigan"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "07/02/21",
      "2017",
      "2010",
      "1999",
      "1993",
      "1992",
      "1991",
      "1982",
      "1975"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "310-1",
      "J-100-2020",
      "DOJ-OGR-00004873"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case, discussing the concept of detrimental reliance in the context of plea agreements and non-prosecution decisions. The text is well-formatted and legible, with no visible redactions or damage."
}