577 F.Supp. 12 (D. Puerto Rico 1983), Crim. 83-143, United States v. Baldacchino

Docket Nº:Crim. 83-143
Citation:577 F.Supp. 12
Party Name:United States v. Baldacchino
Case Date:December 16, 1983
Court:United States District Courts, 1st Circuit, District of Puerto Rico

Page 12

577 F.Supp. 12 (D. Puerto Rico 1983)

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff,


Shaun Vincent BALDACCHINO, Defendant.

Crim. No. 83-143.

United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico.

Dec. 16, 1983

E.M. de Jesus, Asst. U.S. Atty., Hato Rey, P.R., for plaintiff.

Nilsa Lyons, Old San Juan, P.R., Ludwig Ortíz, for defendant.


TORRUELLA, Chief Judge.

On the morning of May 17, 1983, Defendant Shaun Baldacchino gave two statements to Government agents admitting his involvement in crimes charged in the above captioned case. Two days later Baldacchino signed an agreement with the Government through Assistant U.S. Attorney de Jess in which he agreed to testify before the Federal Grand Jury with respect to the information he had about various criminal activities, and to testify in any other hearing or trial, if necessary, as a Government witness. In exchange for his truthful testimony,

Page 13

full cooperation and total compliance with his part of the agreement, the Government agreed to dismiss, without prejudice, any charges pending against him. The Government chose not to implement the agreement and on June 8, 1983, when Baldacchino returned to Puerto Rico to testify before the Grand Jury, he was instead arrested and indicted that same day.

The case is now before us on a Defendant's motion requesting enforcement of the "Plea Bargain Agreement." He claims that his willingness to perform his part of the agreement, as evidenced by his voluntary return to Puerto Rico to testify before the Grand Jury, requires that the Government fulfill its promise to drop the charges.

Defendant's counsel characterizes the agreement as a Plea Bargain Agreement. Although the document itself uses the term "plea agreement", it is in actuality a misnomer. The Defendant has not entered a guilty plea in exchange for any consideration from the Government. We find the agreement to be sui generis. It more closely resembles, if anything, an agreement not to prosecute, distinguished by the fact that here the prosecution would be dropped upon fulfillment of Defendant's part, as opposed to not being initiated in the first place.

In U.S. v. Rodman, 519 F.2d 1058 (1st Cir. 1975), the Court of Appeals upheld the District Court's decision to dismiss the indictment against the defendant based upon an agreement made between Rodman and the Securities and Exchange Commission...

To continue reading