Document Type
Article
Publication Date
2021
Publication Title
George Mason Law Review
Abstract
The near extinction of the federal criminal trial necessarily means a near extinction of numerous constitutional rights when someone is charged with committing a crime. The limited constitutional protections embedded in a change of plea hearing, then, are exceptionally important to ensure the criminal justice system convicts only the guilty. The factual basis inquiry, which ensures a conviction is not obtained in violation of due process, therefore must be meaningfully enforced to protect the criminal defendant from being convicted of a crime he does not know he did not commit. Specifically, when an element of the crime charged is the interstate commerce jurisdictional hook, or a type and amount of a drug, the typical factual basis inquiry questioning the criminal defendant alone probably is not enough to pass constitutional muster, especially when the constitutionality of the jurisdictional hook itself is questionable, and whether it or the type and amount of a drug elements of a crime are not a foregone conclusion and likely are outside the personal knowledge of the criminal defendant. The Constitution and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b)(3) require the government to put on actual evidence of each element of the crime charged to comply with due process and satisfy the rule. At worst, meaningfully engaging in the factual basis inquiry will erode judicial economy. At best, it will ensure criminal defendants are afforded due process, protect criminal defendants from pleading guilty to a crime they do not know they did not commit, and promote confidence in the criminal justice system. The system demands that the latter considerations trump judicial economy every time.
Volume
28
First Page
1089
Recommended Citation
Hayley R Stillwell, The Meaningless Factual Basis Inquiry of Rule 11(b)(3), 28 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 1089 (2021).