Puig Sports Betting Guilty Plea Reversed by Ninth Circuit Court
Posted on: May 30, 2025, 05:30h.
Last updated on: May 30, 2025, 05:30h.
- Former MLB player previously backed out of plea deal with federal prosecutors
- He allegedly placed illegal sports wagers in 2019 and was accused of making false statement to the Justice Department
Former Major League Baseball (MLB) player Yasiel Puig scored a legal victory Thursday when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit sided with a lower court’s ruling that Puig wasn’t beholden to a guilty plea agreement reached with the Department of Justice (DOJ) in 2022.
That accord was struck after it was discovered that Puig, 34, in 2019 placed bets through a California-based black market sports wagering outfit. The unidentified party with whom Puig placed bets was connected with Wayne Nix, a former minor league baseball player. During 2019 when Puig played for the Cincinnati Reds and the Cleveland Indians, he wagered on 900 nearly basketball and football games and tennis matches, but not on MLB contests.
In January 2022, Puig was interviewed by DOJ officials and warned that if he gave false or misleading statements, he could face felony charges. He said he understood that warning. Four months later, DOJ informed the athlete that he could be on the hook for felony charges for false statements and obstruction of justice.
Soon after, Puig agreed to a plea deal in exchange for a lighter punishment. Puig told federal prosecutors he’d plead guilty to a single count of making false statements. The DOJ would drop obstruction charges. In November 2022, Puig informed the Justice Department that he was backing out of the plea agreement because his agent, Lisette Carnet, discovered new evidence that weakened the department’s case against him.
Waiver Not Enforceable, Says Appeals Court
Carnet said that Puig felt rushed and unprepared for his initial interview with the DOJ and that during that process, he wasn’t represented by his own criminal defense counsel and was forced to rely on the department’ interpreter. He was born in Cuba and is a native Spanish speaker.
Additionally, no plea arrangement was reached in that first interview and Federal Rule of Evidence 410 confirms that if such discussions don’t result in a guilty plea or in a withdrawn guilty plea, that evidence cannot be admitted against the defendant.
Viewing the language of Puig’s plea agreement against the backdrop of this caselaw, we conclude that Puig’s…waiver was not triggered here. As we have explained, Puig’s waiver…was expressly contingent on the district ‘[c]ourt’s finding’ that there was a ‘breach of this agreement.’ The terms of that waiver are most naturally understood as requiring that there be an ‘agreement’ that, under our caselaw, was enforceable by the ‘[c]ourt[]’ and as to which the court could therefore make the requisite ‘finding’ of a ‘breach,’” according to the Ninth Circuit’s opinion.
As a result, the court found the waiver against Puig could not be enforced. Federal prosecutors claim that Puig, who lost nearly $283,000 betting on sports, lied about his contact with “Agent 1” — the party in California through whom the wagers were placed.
Agreement Types Matter
In the Puig case, the various types of plea agreements validated by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure took on added importance. As highlighted by Circuit Judge Daniel Collins, a Type A agreement is at play in the Puig matter. That’s an instance in which the government pledges to dismiss some or not bring further charges against a defendant.
Due to the fact Type A agreements feature clauses that are binding, those accords must be approved by district courts and can only be enforced when consent is authorized.
“Because the plea agreement was a Type A agreement requiring the district court’s approval, and because that approval never occurred, the agreement was not enforceable by the court under our precedent,” wrote Collins. “The waiver, by its own terms, therefore did not apply. Consequently, Rule 410 remains applicable with full force here, and the factual basis of Puig’s plea agreement is ‘not admissible against’ Puig.”
No comments yet