(5) Rejection of a Plea agreement. If the Tribunal rejects an appeal agreement with provisions such as Rule 11 (c) (1) (A) or (C), the Tribunal must record in the minutes and refer the matter to the court (or, quite rightly, in camera): 13. The defendant and his associates, officers and directors who are questioned or who make statements must at all times provide complete, truthful and accurate information and testimony. If the defendant withdraws from this agreement, if his collaborators, officers and directors do not do everything in his power to make his employees, officers and directors available to his collaborators, officers and directors of interviews or as witnesses before the grand jury or in court, as he reasonably requested, or if the defendant otherwise violates a provision of this agreement. , this agreement is null and void and does not prevent the United States from suing the defendant or one of its collaborators. , officers or directors for all crimes. These lawsuits may be based on information provided by the defendant or his employees, officers and directors, and this information may be used against the defendant or one of its employees, executives or directors. In the event of a subsequent withdrawal of a debt recognition or a plea of candidate Nolo, Sub-Division e (6) (C) makes inadmissible statements that were made „as part of a procedure under this rule“ on these grounds. One of these is.
B of the defendant`s confession, when he submits his plea under Rule 11, as well as confessions that were made to provide the actual basis after the subdivision (f). However, subdivision (e) (6) (C) is not limited to judicial statements. If the Tribunal were to defer its decision on an appeal contract until the preliminary report was reviewed, as authorized by the sub-division e) (2), statements made to the probation officer in the development of that report would be covered by this provision. Subdivision (c) retains the requirement that the court personally address the defendant. See McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459, 466, 89 P.C. 1166, 22 L.Ed.2d 418 (1969). There is also an amendment to Rule 43 to make it clear that a defendant must be tried at the time of the motion.
Contrary to ABA standards for guilty pleas 3.4 (approved project, 1968) and the ALI standard code of pre-conviction proceedings 350.7 (Propositiond Official Draft, 1975), Rule 11 (6) also does not provide that the evidence described is „in favour“ of the defendant. This should not, however, indicate that such evidence will inevitably be admissible in favour of the defendant. In particular, there is no rejection of decisions such as United States v. Verdoorn, 528 F.2d 103 (8. Cir. 1976), which found that the judge had rightly refused to allow the accused to accept the fact that the prosecutor had attempted to negotiate with them as a „useful dialogue between the parties in practice, if one of the parties were to take the risk that the arguments would be admissible as evidence“. The Supreme Court`s amendments to Rule 11, point (f) require the court to ensure, prior to a guilty verdict, that there is „a factual basis for the einpein.“ The Supreme Court`s amendments to Rule 11 (g) provide that the procedure in which the defendant is dealing with a remedy is recorded to the letter. The Committee added a language in subdivisions (e) and (4) to disclose or reject a contract of appeal to the Tribunal in camera.