United States v. Coon: The End of Detrimental Reliance for Plea Agreements?

Authors

David Aram Kaiser

Abstract

Increasingly, defendants enter into proposed plea agreements that require pre-plea cooperation with the authorities. In such a situation, the defendant acts in reliance on the proposed plea agreement. However, unlike civil contracts, there is no universally recognized principle by which the defendant can enforce the terms of a proposed agreement should the government withdraw the offer before the defendant enters a guilty plea in court. Because plea agreements are a unique hybrid of contract law and criminal procedure, it remains unclear which constitutional protections apply to them. This Note analyzes United States v. Coon, a leading federal case concerning detrimental reliance on a plea agreement. Coon defines the constitutional issues so narrowly as to define away detrimental reliance as a protection. This Note argues that Coon presents a flawed constitutional analysis and is inconsistent with the general trend by courts to recognize detrimental reliance in the area of plea agreements.

Recommended Citation

David Aram Kaiser, United States v. Coon: The End of Detrimental Reliance for Plea Agreements?, 52 Hastings L.J. 579 (2001).
Available at: https://repository.uclawsf.edu/hastings_law_journal/vol52/iss2/5