Supreme Court makes landmark ruling on plea deals

[minnie]

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2012/03/21/20120321supreme-court-landmark-ruling-plea-deals.html#ixzz1ptgIYH4h


Supreme Court makes landmark ruling on plea deals by Robert Barnes - Mar. 21, 2012 10:31 PM
Washington Post WASHINGTON - A divided Supreme Court ruled for the first time Wednesday that the guarantee of effective legal representation applies to plea-bargain agreements, significantly expanding the constitutional rights of defendants as they move through the criminal-justice system. In a pair of cases decided by 5-4 votes, the court opened a new avenue for defendants to challenge their sentences on grounds that their attorneys gave them faulty advice, lawyers on both sides of the issue said. The vast majority of criminal cases end with a guilty plea rather than a trial, and the ruling could affect thousands of cases. "The reality is that plea bargains have become so central to the administration of the criminal-justice system that defense counsel have responsibilities ... that must be met to render the adequate assistance of counsel that the Sixth Amendment requires," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote. He was joined by the court's liberal justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. That is the case, the majority said, even if the defendant is unquestionably guilty or has received a fair trial after turning down a plea bargain. Since more than nine in 10 cases involve a plea rather than trial, the decision will mean greater constitutional scrutiny of the negotiations central to almost every prosecution. "It seems to me the court has created a new body of constitutional law," said Connecticut Assistant State's Attorney Michael Proto, who wrote a brief for 27 states urging the court not to extend the constitutional guarantee to plea bargains. "There are a lot of unanswered questions, and it is going to spawn a lot of litigation." Margaret Colgate Love, who helped write an American Bar Association brief that advocated for the court's action, agreed about its impact. "What makes these cases so important is the Supreme Court's full-on recognition of the centrality of plea bargaining in the modern criminal-justice system and its extension of constitutional discipline to the outcome of the plea process," she said. The decisions prompted a scathing rebuttal from Justice Antonin Scalia, delivered from the bench to signal his displeasure. Scalia called the rulings "absurd" and said the majority had twisted the constitutional right to assure defendants get a fair trial into one in which they have a chance "to escape a fair trial and get less punishment than they deserve." He added in a written dissent, "Today, however, the Supreme Court of the United States elevates plea bargaining from a necessary evil to a constitutional entitlement." The court's conservatives -- Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito -- voted with Scalia. The court was considering two cases in which all parties agreed that the lawyers involved had failed their clients. In one, Galin Edward Frye's attorney never told him of plea-bargain offers from Missouri prosecutors on charges that he was driving with a revoked license. He later pleaded guilty and was sentenced to three years in prison. Prosecutors had offered Frye a couple of deals, one of which would have required 10 days in jail. In the other, Anthony Cooper was charged under Michigan law with assault with intent to murder and other charges after shooting Kali Mundy in the buttock, hip and abdomen. She survived the attack. Prosecutors offered Cooper a deal of 51 to 85 months in prison in exchange for a guilty plea. Cooper turned down that and other offers, allegedly because his attorney told him he could not be found guilty of the attempted-murder charge because he had shot Mundy below the waist. Cooper went to trial, was convicted and was sentenced to 15 to 30 years in prison. In the Frye case, the majority held that "when 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 Cooper's case, the court said "the defendant who goes to trial instead of taking a more favorable plea" may be harmed by receiving "either a conviction on more serious counts or the imposition of a more severe sentence." The majority rejected the view of Scalia, the states and the Obama administration that any ineffective advice from Cooper's attorney was remedied by what Scalia called "the gold standard of American justice -- a full-dress jury trial before 12 men and women tried and true." That view, wrote Kennedy, "ignores the reality that criminal justice today is for the most part a system of pleas, not a system of trials." more...

[JAG06]

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see this decsion as a big deal. In both cases before the SCOTUS, the defense lawyers probably comitted malpractice. The upshot will be that Judges accepting guilty pleas may have to do a little extra inquiry on the record to make sure the defendant is knowingly waiving his right to a jury trial and that he is satisfied with his attorney's representation in the plea negotiations. Any defense attorney turning down a plea deal better have his client sign a c.y.a. memo for his file that 1) the attorney has informed him of the government's plea offer, 2) that the defendant rejects the offer and wants to roll the dice at trial, and 3) that the defendant knows the maximum punishment he could receive if convicted. If the defendant later claims ineffective assistance of counsel, the defense lawyer can defend himself with the memo (atttorney-client privilege is waived). Good defense lawyers have been doing this all along.

[minnie]

The problem with Plea Bargains.
There isn't even a mention of the State's denial of due process and coercive detentions here.

[JAG06]

There is no denial of due process in a plea agreement. The exact process varies by jurisdiction but the judge will always place the defendant under oath and verify that the defendant is knowingly, and voluntarily waiving his right to trial by jury, the right to confront the government's evidence and witnesses, and the right to call witnesses and present evidence in his own behalf. Minnie - have you ever actually seen a criminal trial or guilty plea proceeding (other than TV and movies) or are you just parroting what you read on the internet?

[minnie]

I do not parrot first of all and yes I have a guilty plea but cannot post here about it. I know the 13 yo child had no choice but to plead guilty because the good old boys wanted his parents money. Nuff said.

[JAG06]

Unless the 13-yr old was tried as an adult, the rules for an adjudication in juvenile court are usually much different than for the conviciton of an adult in a court of general jurisdiction. I can understand why your personal experience might leave you bitter, but a criminal defendant's due process rights are fully protected in a plea agreement.

[Earl Sinclair]

JAG - judging by your moniker, you're part of the so-called "justice system."

Maybe you believe that tripe you're espousing, but the reality is much much different.

The fact is, that the prosecution "charge stacks." That's where you throw everything in the book you can think of, and make the result of being found guilty literally hundreds of years of prison time.

That scares the bejesus out of everybody, and effectively coerces them to plead guilty to "lesser charges." And, because trying to defend against a million separate charges is difficult at best ( especially at the Federal level ).

Real felons know the system, so they "plead" readily, and get less time. The poor bastards who are actually innocent do NOT plead, and you have the spectacle of INNOCENT people doing more time than GUILTY people!

Look it up. It's a complete travesty. It does NOT work like in Perry Mason.

Earl

[night driver]

uhm, Earl, unless you are working as a lawyer etc, jag MIGHT have more experience in how this works than you do, first hand I mean....

[JAG06]

Earl - I don't have to "look it up" because, as you so cleverly summised from my rather obvious screen name, I am a practicing attorney and retired JAG (22 years combined active & reserve). I have prosecuted and defended criminal cases at trial and on appeal and so, unlike you, I actually know what I'm talking about.

True, prosecutors will sometimes "stack" charges, as a way to gain leverage in the plea negotiation phase or to improve their chances of conviction. The reason this scares the "bejesus" out of the vast majority of defendants is becasue they are guilty of all the charges and they know it. The fact is that if there were not at least probable cause (i.e. a reasonable basis in fact to believe) based upon the admissible evidence that the defendant was guilty of every charge, the judge would dismiss it. If the defendant is ultimately convicted of chages that are redundant, those will usually be dismissed or combined with others for purposes of sentencing. Is the justice system perfect? Of course not. But to characterize the system as "a complete travesty" is unfair and untrue.

[forever blessed]

the judge will always place the defendant under oath and verify that the defendant is knowingly, and voluntarily waiving his right to trial by jury, the right to confront the government's evidence and witnesses, and the right to call witnesses and present evidence in his own behalf.

I can tell you, from personal experience, that your statement above is not accurate. Signatures on a document can suffice, as long as one represents the prosecution and one represents the defendant. Furthermore, there isn't necessarily any inquiry about the nature of the representations made by the prosecution to secure the capitulation of the defendant, nor whether the defendant is aware of all of the provisions of the plea agreement, nor whether the defendant is fully informed of the rights being surrendered accordingly.