Criminal – Defendant agreed to allow statement of facts at trial

Where the defendant agreed to a statement of facts in a plea agreement, before deciding not to proceed with the plea, the court enforced a provision in the plea agreement allowing the government to introduce the statement of facts at trial, even if the defendant breached the agreement.

Background

The government has moved to admit Sohaib Akhter‘s statement of facts that were part of a plea agreement to which he initially agreed, before changing his mind.

Standard

Federal Rule of Evidence 11(f) and Federal Rule of Evidence 410 govern admissibility of a plea, plea discussions and related statements. As the Supreme Court has recognized, “absent some affirmative indication that the agreement was entered into unknowingly or involuntarily, an agreement to waive the exclusionary provisions of the plea-statement rules is valid and enforceable.”

Voluntariness

It is apparent that the plea agreement was entered into voluntarily. Defendant professed in the plea agreement itself that his signature to the agreement was knowing and voluntary. Defense counsel agreed. They each agreed that defendant had reviewed every part of the agreement with his attorney.

Defendant instead argues the alleged coercion was his feelings after watching his brother/codefendant enter his guilty plea. But Muneeb Akhter’s plea colloquy was conducted after both defendants had already signed the plea agreements. Thus, any coercion defendant experienced while watching his brother enter his guilty plea could not have impacted his own decision to enter the plea agreement before that colloquy ever took place.

Defendant made fleeting references to feeling coerced by his conversations with his brother. But, as the court noted during the hearing, defendant specifically asked to be able to speak with his brother. Moreover, courts have specifically rejected arguments that influence or pressure by friends of family render a plea involuntary.

Here, defendant’s references to the “coercion” he faced are vague and non-specific. He does not allege that his brother threatened him and could not provide the court with an explanation why his conversations with his brother rendered his plea involuntary. Accordingly, defendant has failed to provide any affirmative indication that his plea was entered into involuntarily in this regard.

Defendant also made a vague reference to his plea being “tethered” to his brother’s plea and that being coercive. Again, that is belied by defendant’s statements pursuant to his signature on the plea agreement itself. Moreover, it is unclear as to what defendant referred as he did not elaborate further, and defendant did not specifically assert that it was the government who “tethered” defendant’s guilty plea to his brother’s plea.

Nonetheless, the court assumes that defendant intended to suggest that the government was requiring both defendants to plead guilty in order for one defendant to plead guilty. As an initial matter, the plea agreement makes no references to such a requirement. And, in any event, courts have rejected similar claims that a defendant’s plea was involuntary because he entered it to protect a family member.

At the hearing, defendant also indicated that the attorneys “were really trying to get us to sign” and that he “was very pressured.” But this is belied by defendant’s statement under oath that he was entirely satisfied with the services of his counsel. Moreover, the signed plea agreement also provides that he “is satisfied that the defendant’s attorney has rendered effective assistance” and that his signature is voluntary.

It is entirely unclear what about defendant’s conversation with counsel is alleged to have made him feel pressured and, in any event, defendant swore under oath that he was satisfied with the services of his counsel. Accordingly, defendant has failed to provide any affirmative indication that his plea was entered into involuntarily in this regard. The plea agreement is thus enforceable, and the court must determine whether defendant committed a material breach.

Breach

Defendant argues that he is not in breach because his plea was never accepted by the court. Not so. The plea agreement provides it is “effective when signed by the defendant, the defendant’s attorney, and an attorney for the United States.” Furthermore, the plea agreement provides that the Rule 11(f) and Rule 410 waiver apply “[if] the defendant withdraws from this agreement.” District judges in this District, analyzing similar provisions in a plea agreement, have found that a defendant’s withdrawal of a plea constitutes a breach of the plea.

Accordingly, the court finds that: (i) the plea agreement is valid and enforceable; (ii) defendant materially breached the plea agreement; and (iii) the statement of facts is admissible pursuant to the plea agreement. Government’s motion in limine granted.

United States v. Akhter, Case No. 1:25-cr-307, May 1, 2026. EDVA at Alexandria (Alston). VLW 026-3-198. 11 pp.

Full-Text Opinion

VLW 026-3-198
Virginia Lawyers Weekly