On Monday, the Supreme Court heard two cases that could decide whether convicted criminals are given recourse for cases in which their attorneys mishandled plea bargains before ending up in court.
The Court should rule on some time next year according to the Associated Press.
The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution ensures that “the accused shall enjoy the right … to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.”
This has been interpreted through cases such as McMann v. Richardson, which established that defendants have a fundamental right to “effective assistance of competent counsel.”
Normally this applies to a lawyer’s performance during the trial and can sometimes result in a mistrial.
However, last year the Court decided in Padilla v. Kentucky, that a lawyer could fail at his or her constitutional duty before trial too, by advising their clients to take a bad plea bargain.
In doing so, the Supreme Court established that “the negotiation of a plea bargain is a critical stage of the litigation for purposes of the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel.”
Fact: Plea bargains are not a right. They can be offered and taken away by the prosecution at any time.
But in Padilla, the Court took a significant step in that direction, probably due to the large majority of convictions resulting form guilty pleas with 95 percent of resulting in such an outcome, according to the New York Times.
Now the Supreme Court must decide whether a misadvised plea bargain –– in that they didn’t take it –– can apply to cases after the trail is over and the defendant has been convicted.
One case, Lafler v. Cooper, resulted in Anthony Cooper’s conviction of assault with the intent to murder, for shooting a woman four times.
Before the trial, his lawyer advised him to reject a plea bargain that called for a four to seven year sentence, but when he was convicted, he received 15-30 years.
The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati overturned his sentence because of his lawyer’s bad advice, according to the Associated Press.
Which is more unfair: the convict’s lawyer leading him down the path to more prison time or the prosecuting attorney’s inability rightly convict a guilty man because of his lawyer’s incompetence?
The problem is that after a trial, innocence is no longer presumed. The defendant turns into a convict, and there is no way to objectively assess their pre-convicted rights, retroactively.
Justice Anthony Kennedy curtly summarized the predicament, according to The New York Times. “You are saying it's unfair to have a fair trial; isn't that correct?” the justice asked.
A greater concern is the dangerous precedent these rulings, if not overturned, could establish.
Rather than the responsible competency resting on the defense counsel, lawyers will now find themselves in a Catch-22 position: The interest of their client is best served not by educating and informing their clients about their legal rights, but by keeping them ignorant, especially of any plea bargains.
Trial will render the defendant either not guilty, or guilty — in which case the convict will now have the recourse to go back and accept a plea that the prosecutor previously offered.
This would be a tragedy, as it would annul the best part of our justice system: the right to a fair trail.
Reach the columnist at djoconn1@asu.edu.
Click here to subscribe to the daily State Press newsletter.
