U.S. v. Agboola
| Decision Date | 24 January 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. CRIM.01-162(1)(JRT/FLN).,CRIM.01-162(1)(JRT/FLN). |
| Citation | 241 F.Supp.2d 1025 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Olusoji Michael AGBOOLA, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
Mark D. Larsen and Michelle E. Jones, Assistant United States Attorneys, Office of the United States Attorney, Minneapolis, MN, for plaintiff.
Gary R. Bryant-Wolf, Minneapolis, MN, for defendant Agboola.
Leon Adolphus Trawick, Trawick & Smith, Minneapolis, MN, for defendant Aihe.
On January 22, 2003, the Court accepted defendant Olusoji Michael Agboola's ("Agboola") change of plea from not guilty on all counts, to a plea of guilty to counts 11, 41, and 43 and a plea of nolo contendere for counts 1 through 10, counts 12 through 40, and count 42. The government opposed Agboola's request to plead nolo contendere. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b), the Court considered the views of the parties and the interest of the public before granting consent for the nolo contendere plea. The Court described its reasons for consenting to the nolo contendere plea at the time it accepted the plea. This memorandum further elucidates the Court's consideration of the views of the parties and the public interest.
A plea of nolo contendere 1 is "an admission of every essential element of the offense pleaded in the charge, and is tantamount to an admission of guilt." 1A Charles Alan Wright, Federal Practice & Procedure § 177 (3d ed.1999). In this case, Agboola's plea of nolo contendere effectively admits that he has no basis to challenge the government's evidence. See, e.g., McHugh v. United States, 230 F.2d 252, 254 (1st Cir.1956) ().
In addition, the Court finds that the deterrent effect on Agboola, and on those contemplating similar crimes, is not lessened by its acceptance of this combined plea. In fact, Agboola's sentence will likely be stiffer than if he had plead guilty to all counts, because a plea of nolo contendere effectively precludes a downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility. Agboola's agreement to entry of judgment on all counts also eliminates the possibility that he will receive a lesser sentence due to acquittal on one or more counts.
Acceptance of this plea also eliminates the necessity for a complicated trial that would take up to ten or more trial days, and therefore serves the interest of judicial economy. See, e.g., United States v. Brighton Bldg. & Maintenance Co., 431 F.Supp. 1118, 1121 (N.D.Ill.1977) ().
The Court also finds that its acceptance of the combined plea does not undermine the public interest by unduly minimizing the seriousness of defendant's conduct. Less than one year ago, the government was willing to permit Agboola to enter guilty pleas to four counts, and in return the government agreed to dismiss the remaining counts. By entering this combined plea, Agboola pleads guilty to one fewer count than the plea agreement contemplated, but he will be adjudicated guilty for all remaining counts. The government's willingness to enter into the former plea agreement undermines its argument that the public interest is not served by acceptance of the combined guilty and nolo contendere pleas. The Court is mindful of the fact that the government was forced to prepare for a trial that will not now occur. Nonetheless, the Court does not accept that the public's interest has changed so dramatically in less than one year.
The government's earlier willingness to enter a plea agreement distinguishes the instant case from one cited by the government in opposition to the request to plead nolo contendere. In United States v. Mapco Gas Products, Inc., 709 F.Supp. 895 (E.D.Ark.1989), the district court judge refused to allow corporate and individual defendants to withdraw their pleas of not guilty and enter pleas of nolo contendere. The Mapco defendants were charged with violations of antitrust laws by conspiring to suppress and restrain competition in the sale of liquefied petroleum gas to customers in East Central Arkansas. Id. at 897. There is no indication in the published opinions that the government in the Mapco case had ever entered into plea agreements, or was at any time willing to compromise any of the counts. See id.; see also United States v. Mapco Gas Products, Inc., 709 F.Supp. 900 (E.D.Ark.1989) (). Further, the defendants in Mapco sought to enter pleas of nolo contendere to all counts. In this case, the Court consented to a combined plea of guilty on three counts, and nolo contendere on the remaining counts.
The Mapco Court noted that its "greatest concern" was whether allowing the plea would be in the best interests of justice "when it is incumbent upon this Court to administer criminal justice fairly and impartially and without regard to one's economic, social or political standing in the community." Mapco, 709 F.Supp. at 899. This Court shares the concern that defendants accused of white collar crimes should be perceived to receive, and in fact do receive, the same treatment as all other defendants. However, that concern is more compelling in cases like Mapco, where the defendants include a large multi-state corporation and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fleetwood Folding Trailers v. Coleman Co.
... ... As a result, FFT alleges that triable issues of fact existed to warrant a jury determination on the matter. Opposing this, Coleman asks us to adopt the district court's definition of "cure," which is to remedy any existing breaches and return the parties to their predefault conditions ... ...