This should have been more accurately explained to the defendant so that he could have made a decision whether to withdraw his plea.United States v. Roblero-Solis, 588 F.3d 692 (9th Cir. 2009)The practice of advising 40 or 50 defendants at a time of the Rule 11 rights and procedures is not permissible, even if the actual entry of the guilty plea and factual basis is handled on an individual basis. There is no practical way that even the most conscientious judge can be assured that 40 or more defendants (some of whom do not speak English) are fully understanding the rights that are being waived when a plea is entered.
To cope with the large number of prosecutions, the federal court “‘has adopted a procedure for the taking of pleas en masse intended to preserve the rudiments of [Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure] 11 and the [C]onstitution.” Arqueta-Ramos, No. 10-10618, slip op. at 4-5 (quoting United States v. Roblero-Solis, 588 F.3d 692, 693 (9th Cir. 2009)). That’s exactly what occurred in Arqueta-Ramos’ criminal proceeding.