Yasiel Puig Sports Betting Guilty Plea Overturned by Federal Court

The U.S.

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Thursday affirmed a trial courts evidence-based ruling in favor of former MLB All-Star outfielder Yasiel Puig.

In 2022, Puig reneged on a pre-indictment plea agreement with federal prosecutors, and the DOJ demanded he should face repercussions for evidence revealed during plea negotiations.Puig, 34, played for the Los Angeles Dodgers from 2013 to 2018 before spending his last MLB season, 2019, with the Cincinnati Reds and Cleveland Guardians.

The Cuban native has since played in South Korea, Mexico, the Dominican Republic and Venezuela.

He recently announced he was leaving the Kiwoom Heroes of South Koreas KBO League to seek treatment in Los Angeles for an ailing shoulder.

More from Sportico.comDodgers, Yankees Run Away With MLB Ticket Revenue RaceRobinhood's Sports Prediction Markets Are a Hook for Wider PlayEx-MLB Player Ruf Sues Reds Over Knee Injury From Tarp CollisionPuig became entangled with the law in 2019, when he allegedly placed sports bets through an illegal gambling operation based in California.

Although the U.S.

Supreme Courts 2018 decision in Murphy v.

NCAA held the federal ban on states legalizing sports betting was unconstitutional, California continues to generally prohibit sports betting.

Writing for himself, along with Ninth Circuit Judges Holly A.

Thomas and Anthony D.

Johnstone, Judge Daniel P.

Collins noted that Puigs ensuing bets were not very successful.

In fact, he accumulated nearly $282,900 in gambling debts in 2019.As part of a wider investigation into illegal sports betting, the DOJ interviewed Puig in January 2022 via Webex video conference.

Before the interview started, a federal agent warned Puig that lying to federal law enforcement agents is a crime.

Puig responded that he understood.

Puig nonetheless made materially false statements during the interview, Collins explained.

For example, Puig claimed that he had never discussed sports betting with a person identified as Agent 1 and described a former collegiate baseball player who became a baseball coach.

The DOJ asserts that Puig lied about that topic.

He and Agent 1 allegedly exchanged multiple phone calls and texts concerning sports betting and Agent 1 assisted Puig in placing at least 899 bets on sporting events over a five-month period in 2019.In May 2022, the DOJ informed Puig that he faced potential felony charges for false statements and obstruction of justice but expressed a willingness to negotiate a pre-indictment plea deal with him.

Over several weeks, those discussions led to what appeared to be a plea deal.

An interpreter for Puig signed a statement stating she had accurately translated the agreement for Puig, who, along with his attorneys and a federal prosecutor, signed.

Puig agreed to plead guilty at the earliest opportunity to one count of making false statements.

In exchange, prosecutors agreed to recommend a light sentence and to refrain from further criminally prosecuting himnamely for obstruction of justicefor conduct arising out of facts stated in the plea agreement.

In August, the Justice Department filed paperwork in court indicating that Puig had been charged with one count of making false statements and had signed a plea deal to resolve that charge.The plea agreement contained nearly five pages of factual basis for Puigs alleged criminal act.

A factual basis explains what facts a defendant admits related to the charge.

Collins noted that while the plea agreements factual basis mostly tracked allegations in the criminal charge, it contained additional facts that Puig allegedly disclosed or acknowledged.

Those additions concerned a photo, a copy of a cashiers check and an audio message Puig allegedly sent through WhatsApp in 2022 in which he assured an identified person that he didnt tell the feds anything incriminating about that person.The plea agreement also featured a waiver provision outlining the potential impact of Puig breaching the agreement.

Puig agreed to waive any legal protections for suppression or exclusion of new information in the factual basis.

That provision is problematic, Collins explained, since Federal Rule of Evidence 410 renders inadmissible evidence of a statement made during plea negotiations with an attorney for the prosecuting authority when the defendant participated in the plea discussions and when those discussions did not result in a guilty plea.That language became very relevant in November 2022, when Puig notified the DOJ and the trial judge that he was withdrawing from the plea agreement and that he would not enter a guilty plea.

His attorney explained that she and Puig had uncovered additional evidence that undermined some of the factual basis and strengthened Puigs legal defenses.In response, the DOJ said Puig breached his plea agreement and, given the waiver provision that the player signed, Puig had waived legal protections regarding incriminating statements made during the plea negotiations.

The DOJ then obtained a new indictment, which added a charge for obstruction of justice and claimed Puig impeded the feds by providing false information and concealing key evidence.

Not so fast, Puig maintained.

He hadnt pleaded guilty.

He had only agreed to plead guilty.

U.S.

District Judge Dolly M.

Gee concurred, finding that the court hadnt formally accepted the terms of Puigs plea deal because the court had never accepted them.

Therefore, the plea deals termsincluding the waiverwere unenforceable.

The DOJ was thus informed prosecutors couldnt introduce at trial the factual basis recited in the plea agreement.The DOJ appealed to the Ninth Circuit, but the appellate court likewise found Puig hasnt waived his right to challenge the admissibility of evidence and testimony related to the plea agreement.

Collins wrote the waiver was expressly contingent on a court approving the plea and finding there was a breach.

The waiver, by its own terms, Collins wrote, therefore did not apply and thus the factual basis of Puigs plea agreement is not admissible against Puig.Collins was also critical of the governments assertion it suffered a form of detrimental reliance that warrants enforcement of the waiver.We reject this contention, Collins explained, because no such showing of detrimental reliance has been or can be made here.

He added, it makes no sense to posit, as this argument necessarily does, that the government relied on Puigs not breaching the agreement when the government drafted the agreements language about the consequences of a breach.

By definition, such language assumes a breach.To be clear, Puig still faces criminal charges.

A jury trialwhich had been scheduled for August 2023 then pushed back to January 2024, and now still awaits a datewill eventually happen unless the case is resolved beforehand.

Should the case go to trial, expect battles over the scope of what type of evidence stemmed from the charges or the factual basis.

Best of Sportico.comCollege Athletes as Employees: Answering 25 Key QuestionsSign up for Sportico's Newsletter.

For the latest news, follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram..

This article has been shared from the original article on yahoo, here is the link to the original article.