Supreme Court: defendant has constitutional right to plea bargain

[Kleves]

Washington (CNN) -- A deeply divided Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that criminal defendants who receive inadequate legal advice on pretrial plea bargains can have their sentences overturned, equating that with an unconstitutional and ineffective assistance of counsel.

The separate 5-4 decisions in a pair of cases from Michigan and Missouri will have a huge, immediate impact on the 97% of federal convictions and 94% of state convictions that stem from guilty pleas.

"This court now holds that, as a general rule, defense counsel has the duty to communicate formal offers from the prosecution to accept a plea on terms and conditions that may be favorable to the accused," said Justice Anthony Kennedy, joining four of his more liberal colleagues. "When the defense counsel allowed the offer to expire without advising the defendant or allowing him to consider it, defense counsel did not render the effective assistance the Constitution requires."

In a rare oral dissent delivered from the bench, Justice Antonin Scalia called the majority decision "absurd" and "unheard-of."

In unusual detail, the opinion lays out specific guidelines to defense counsel, saying they must relay plea bargain offers from the prosecution, regardless whether the lawyer believes them to be proper.

The case from Michigan involved Blaine Lafler, convicted of assault with intent to murder and other charges, after shooting and seriously wounding a woman.

The state twice offered to dismiss two of the charges, and recommended a reduced sentence in return for a guilty plea. Lafler claims he rejected the offers after his lawyer convinced him the prosecution could not prove the most serious charge. The defendant was convicted and received 185 to 360 months behind bars.

In Missouri, Galin Frye was charged with driving on a revoked license. Three previous convictions on the same charge meant he could be sentenced to up to four years in prison. Court records shows he was not told about two pretrial plea bargain offers that would have reduced his jail time.

A week before his preliminary court hearing, the man was again arrested on the same offense. With no deal on the table, he subsequently pleaded guilty and received three years imprisonment.

"There appears to be a reasonable probability Frye would have accepted the prosecutor's original offer of a plea bargain if the offer had been communicated to him," Kennedy said in his ruling, "because he pleaded guilty (later) to a more serious charge, with no promise of a sentencing recommendation from the prosecution."

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan supported Kennedy, who again proved to be the "swing" vote for the majority.

Both cases were sent back to lower courts to sort out the new sentencing guidelines.

In his dissent, Scalia warned criminal defendants will now flood courts with new claims of bad legal representation.

"The court today embraces the sporting chance theory of criminal law, in which the state functions like a conscientious casino operator, giving each player a fair chance to beat the house, that is, serve less time than the law says he deserves," he said. "And when a player is excluded from the tables, his constitutional rights have been violated."

He added, "In today's cases, the court's zeal to bring perfection to everything requires the reversal of perfectly valid, eminently just convictions," Scalia said. "It is not wise; it is not right."

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito joined all or part of the dissent.

The cases are Lafler v. Cooper (10-209) and Missouri v. Frye (10-444).

Despite what the article seems to imply, the real innovation here is not holding that a defendant has a right to competent assistance of counsel during plea bargaining - that right already existed. Instead, the real change is that the Court says that a full and fair trial does not cure that defect. Thus a defendant could potentially reject a plea (based on bad advice), go through the entire trial process and lose, and then get the benefit of the offer he originally rejected on appeal. Another interesting aspect of the decision is that a defendant whose rights were indisputably violated might get no remedy at all. This is because the Court gives the sentencing court discretion to determine whether a defendant should get the benefit of the plea bargain, the sentence he received after trial, or something in between. Thus the defendant may be left with a right without a remedy.

[The Brain]

Any impact on white people?

[The Minsky Moment]

Thus a defendant could potentially reject a plea (based on bad advice), go through the entire trial process and lose, and then get the benefit of the offer he originally rejected on appeal.

As I read it, the decision doesn't address a defendant's rejection of a plea based on bad advice from an attorney, but rather the specific scenario where the plea is rejected because defense counsel never informs the defendant of the plea offer in the first place.

[stjaba]

Thus a defendant could potentially reject a plea (based on bad advice), go through the entire trial process and lose, and then get the benefit of the offer he originally rejected on appeal.

As I read it, the decision doesn't address a defendant's rejection of a plea based on bad advice from an attorney, but rather the specific scenario where the plea is rejected because defense counsel never informs the defendant of the plea offer in the first place.

Not so. In Lafler, the defendant rejected a plea deal based on his attorney's advice. Specifically, Lafler had shot a women several times below the waist. He was charged with assault with intent to murder. His attorney told him to reject the deal because that he could get acquitted due to the fact the shots were aimed below the waist.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-209.pdf

[Razgovory]

Any impact on white people?

Depends if they marked "Hispanic" down on their census form as well.  Also if they have a cut on their heads.

[The Minsky Moment]

Not so. In Lafler, the defendant rejected a plea deal based on his attorney's advice. Specifically, Lafler had shot a women several times below the waist. He was charged with assault with intent to murder. His attorney told him to reject the deal because that he could get acquitted due to the fact the shots were aimed below the waist.

Oh I see I just read Frye.   

That's a bit broader but wow that is some extraordinarily bad advice.

[Capetan Mihali]

Not so. In Lafler, the defendant rejected a plea deal based on his attorney's advice. Specifically, Lafler had shot a women several times below the waist. He was charged with assault with intent to murder. His attorney told him to reject the deal because that he could get acquitted due to the fact the shots were aimed below the waist.

That's a bit broader but wow that is some extraordinarily bad advice.

One of the very brief research tasks I did last summer was checking to make sure that it was, in fact, not true.  We had a client who had heard that theory from a fellow gang member and was very adamant about it.   

Actually, he probably had a better case than the guy in question, since with our guy it was just one shot that hit the lower leg, with maybe some witnesses to say he aimed for the legs.   Unfortunately, in Tenn. at least, you can still get an attempted murder rap hung on you even if the bullets hit below the waist. 

[dps]

Despite what the article seems to imply, the real innovation here is not holding that a defendant has a right to competent assistance of counsel during plea bargaining - that right already existed. Instead, the real change is that the Court says that a full and fair trial does not cure that defect. Thus a defendant could potentially reject a plea (based on bad advice), go through the entire trial process and lose, and then get the benefit of the offer he originally rejected on appeal.

That makes sense, though.  If the defendent had received competent counsel, presumbly then the plea agreement would have been accepted and there would have been no trial (unless the defendent rejected the plea against the advice of counsel, in which case there would be no valid claim of lack of competent counsel).  Though obviously, advice to reject a plea agreement isn't evidence of lack of competent legal representation in all cases.

Another interesting aspect of the decision is that a defendant whose rights were indisputably violated might get no remedy at all. This is because the Court gives the sentencing court discretion to determine whether a defendant should get the benefit of the plea bargain, the sentence he received after trial, or something in between. Thus the defendant may be left with a right without a remedy.

This part, though, seems odd.  What's the logic there?

[Ideologue]

Not so. In Lafler, the defendant rejected a plea deal based on his attorney's advice. Specifically, Lafler had shot a women several times below the waist. He was charged with assault with intent to murder. His attorney told him to reject the deal because that he could get acquitted due to the fact the shots were aimed below the waist.

That's a bit broader but wow that is some extraordinarily bad advice.

One of the very brief research tasks I did last summer was checking to make sure that it was, in fact, not true.  We had a client who had heard that theory from a fellow gang member and was very adamant about it.   

Actually, he probably had a better case than the guy in question, since with our guy it was just one shot that hit the lower leg, with maybe some witnesses to say he aimed for the legs.   Unfortunately, in Tenn. at least, you can still get an attempted murder rap hung on you even if the bullets hit below the waist.

I don't get it from a practical standpoint.  If you're going to shoot someone, why not just kill them?

Anyway, I thought you already had to communicate plea offers.  FFS.

The "shoot below the waist" seems like more an ordinary case of, like Joan said, extraordinarily bad advice, rising to the level of ineffective assistance of counsel (ala "punching someone in the face? shit, that's not battery").

[Razgovory]

People get nervous during a murder.  They shoot all over the place.