United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Eastern Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY
JON STUART SCOLES, Chief Magistrate Judge.
On the 23rd day of September 2014, the defendant, by consent, appeared before the court pursuant to FED. R. CRIM. P. 11, and entered a plea of guilty to Count 2 of the Indictment. After cautioning and examining the defendant under oath concerning each of the subjects mentioned in FED. R. CRIM. P. 11, the court determined that the guilty plea was knowing and voluntary, and that the offense charged is supported by an independent basis in fact containing each of the essential elements of such offense. The court therefore RECOMMENDS that the plea of guilty be accepted and that the defendant be adjudged guilty and have sentence imposed accordingly.
At the commencement of the FED. R. CRIM. P. 11 proceeding, the defendant was placed under oath and advised that if she answered any questions falsely, she could be prosecuted for perjury or for making a false statement.
The court then asked a number of questions to ensure the defendant's mental capacity to enter a plea. The defendant stated her full name, her age, and the extent of her schooling. The court inquired into the defendant's history of mental illness and addiction to controlled substances. The court further inquired into whether the defendant was under the influence of any drug, medication or alcoholic beverage at the time of the plea. From this inquiry, the court determined that the defendant was not suffering from any mental disability that would impair her ability to make a knowing, intelligent and voluntary plea of guilty to the charges.
The defendant acknowledged that she had received a copy of the Indictment and that she had fully discussed these charges with her attorney.
The defendant was then fully advised of her right not to plead guilty and to have a jury trial, including:
1. The right to assistance of counsel at every stage of the pretrial and trial proceedings;
2. The right to a speedy, public trial;
3. The right to have her case tried by a jury selected from a cross-section of the community;
4. That she would be presumed innocent at each stage of the proceedings, and would be found not guilty unless the government could prove each and every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt;
5. That the government could call witnesses into court, but that her attorney would have the right to confront and cross-examine these witnesses;
6. That the defendant would have the right to see and hear all witnesses presented at trial;
7. That the defendant would have the right to subpoena defense witnesses to testify at the trial and that if she could not afford to pay the mileage and other fees to require the attendance of these witnesses, the government would be required to pay those costs;
8. That the defendant would have the privilege against self incrimination, i.e., that she could choose to testify at trial, but that she need not do so, and that if she chose not to testify, the court would, if she requested, instruct ...