The following excerpt is from Lemke v. Ryan, D.C. No. 2:09-cv-01059-DGC, No. 11-15960 (9th Cir. 2013):
The majority gets off on the wrong foot by misconstruing the plain language of Lemke's plea agreement, then compounds its misstep by ignoring the context in which the agreement was entered into. The waiver language "is broad," the majority concedes, but they still find it insufficient because it doesn't specifically mention "double jeopardy" or any other particular subject matter. It doesn't have to. The two requirements for a valid waiver are that it must be "voluntary in the sense that it was the product of a free and deliberate choice," which is not in issue here, and "made with a full awareness of both the nature of the right being abandoned and the consequences of the decision to abandon it." Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412, 421 (1986). Yes, the
Page 26
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.