Federal Rules of Evidence currently provide that statements made by a criminal defendant during plea negotiations with a prosecutor are inadmissible in a proceeding against the defendant. "Mezzanto" involved a criminal defendant who, prior to settlement negotiations, waived the plea-statement rules for impeachment purposes at the behest of the prosecutor. In holding that this waiver was valid and enforceable, the Court relied largely on the general presumption that criminal defendants can waive statutory, contractual, and even the most fundamental constitutional rights. This note argues that the Court's majority, ignoring the plain language and legislative history of the plea-statement rules, improperly placed the rules within the general presumption favoring waiver. Additionally, the note argues that prosecutors cause defendants to enter into contracts of adhesion by demanding that they waive the plea-statement rules. This note further contends that the Court's opinion affirms the growing practice of prosecutors to demand waiver of the plea-statement rules automatically, thereby circumventing the rule's exclusionary provisions. Writing in dissent, Justice Souter correctly warned that the Court's decision could ultimately allow defendants to waiver the protections of the plea-statement rules for use in the government's case in chief. 185 footnotes