Tenth Circuit Finds Defendant’s Statements Directing Police Officers to Victim’s Body Didn’t Trigger Evidentiary Protection For Statements During Plea Discussions
Federal Rule of Evidence 401(a)(4) provides that
In a civil or criminal case, evidence of the following is not admissible against the defendant who made the plea or participated in the plea discussions:….
(4) a statement made during plea discussions with an attorney for the prosecuting authority if the discussions did not result in a guilty plea or they resulted in a later-withdrawn guilty plea.
So, does a defendant’s statement to law enforcement officers directing them to the victim’s body trigger the protection in Rule 410(a)(4)? That was the question addressed by the Tenth Circuit in its recent opinion in United States v. Mullins, 2026 WL 120161 (10th Cir. 2026).
In Mullins, Tyler Jay Mullins was convicted of the murder of his ex-girlfriend, Rachel Woodall. Specifically,
The day Woodall disappeared, Mullins agreed to speak with officers at the police station….Soon after, Mullins’s uncle, Harry Jordan, retained [Frank] Stout to represent Mullins….Sometime that day, Stout spoke with Ross about Woodall’s body….According to Stout, Ross said that—if Mullins revealed Woodall’s location—Ross would not seek the death penalty….In contrast, Ross testified that Stout approached him about the body’s location and that he told Stout he had no interest in making a deal….
Ross also testified that Jordan called him the next day to discuss Mullins….Jordan asked what would happen to Mullins; Ross responded that he could not say, but that “the worst he could do was ask for the death penalty.”…
Later that day, Stout told police that Mullins would take them to Woodall’s body….Officers from various agencies formed a “caravan” of cars and drove to the body’s location….Stout, Mullins, and some law-enforcement officers rode together in a bus, while Ross drove in his own car at the end of the caravan….Based on Mullins’s directions, law-enforcement officers found Woodall’s body buried and wrapped in a tarp….The next day, the state charged Mullins with Woodall’s murder….
Stout stopped representing Mullins about a month later….About seven months after that, Mullins entered a blind guilty plea, and the state court sentenced him to life imprisonment.
After a tortured procedural history, Mullins eventually ended up on trial for the murder and claimed that his statements directing the police officers to Woodall’s body were inadmissible under Rule 410(a)(4).
The trial court disagreed, and the Tenth Circuit affirmed that ruling on appeal, finding that
First, Mullins’s motion fails under a strict reading because Mullins directed law-enforcement officers—not Ross or another prosecutor—to the body….
Second, Mullins’s motion fails under a broad reading, too, because no evidence supports that the officers Stout spoke to or the ones Mullins directed to the body were authorized to negotiate a plea….Indeed, though the district court held that Rule 410(a)(4) did not apply to statements made to law-enforcement officers, the court also considered whether Mullins’s claim would succeed under Lawrence….The court found “no evidence suggesting that ADA Ross had authorized police officials to make a plea agreement.”