The 9th and 1st Circuit Courts recently ruled against government tactics that undermined plea agreements, signaling a critical stance on prosecutorial conduct. In Joe Farrago-Contrarias’ case, the government recommended a low-end sentence of 151 months for meth distribution but included inflammatory remarks in its memo, leading to a 188-month sentence. The 9th Circuit criticized this approach, noting it effectively urged the judge to impose a harsher sentence.Similarly, the 1st Circuit reversed Piña Mojito’s 72-month sentence for a machinegun charge. Despite agreeing to recommend a within-Guidelines sentence, prosecutors submitted unsubstantiated evidence of other criminal behavior. The court found this violated the plea deal’s spirit and improperly influenced the judge.

9th Circuit Decision: Government Overreach**Joe Farrago-Contrarias pled guilty to meth distribution under a plea deal recommending a 151-month sentence. However, the government’s memo included severe criticism, leading to a 188-month term. The 9th Circuit condemned this tactic, stating it violated the plea agreement’s spirit.**1st Circuit Ruling: Upholding Plea Integrity**Piña Mojito’s plea deal for a machinegun charge was similarly breached when prosecutors submitted unverified evidence of additional crimes. The 1st Circuit reversed his 72-month sentence, emphasizing that such conduct undermines trust in plea negotiations.