WWW.DISSERTATION.XLIBX.INFO
FREE ELECTRONIC LIBRARY - Dissertations, online materials
 
<< HOME
CONTACTS



Pages:   || 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |   ...   | 8 |

«CHICAGO PUBLIC LAW AND LEGAL THEORY WORKING PAPER NO. 430 LAFLER AND FRYE: TWO SMALL BAND-AIDS FOR A FESTERING WOUND Albert W. Alschuler THE LAW ...»

-- [ Page 1 ] --

CHICAGO

PUBLIC LAW AND LEGAL THEORY WORKING PAPER NO. 430

LAFLER AND FRYE: TWO SMALL BAND-AIDS

FOR A FESTERING WOUND

Albert W. Alschuler

THE LAW SCHOOL

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

June 2013

This paper can be downloaded without charge at the Public Law and Legal Theory Working Paper Series:

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/academics/publiclaw/index.html and The Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection.

File: Formatted Macro - Alschuler Created on: 5/16/2013 10:50:00 AM Last Printed: 5/28/2013 10:05:00 AM Lafler and Frye: Two Small Band-Aids for a Festering Wound Albert W. Alschuler*

I. TWO ASTONISHING THINGS ABOUT LAFLER

AND FRYE: THE DISSENTING AND

MAJORITY OPINIONS

II. LOOKING FOR LANDMARKS IN ALL THE

WRONG PLACES

III. MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: GUARANTEEING THE

EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN THE

PLEA NEGOTIATION PROCESS

IV. THE ALCHEMY OF AMERICAN TRIALS:

TURNING GOLD INTO LEAD

A. Finding a Baseline

B. An Unconvincing Study

C. The Expected Difference Between Sentences Imposed Following Trials and Those Imposed Following Guilty Pleas............ 691 D. A Hard Look at the Post-Trial Baseline.......... 696 V. CONCLUSION

Imagine that you are on death row, and imagine that the incompetence of your lawyer has put you there. A witness at your trial testified that you waited at the wheel of a getaway car while two accomplices robbed a liquor store and one of them shot and killed the clerk. Shortly after your arrest, the prosecutor offered to permit you and your co-defendants to plead guilty to voluntary manslaughter and armed robbery. This offer would have limited your sentence to 25 years.1 Your co-defendants, including the alleged triggerman, accepted the offer. You would have accepted the offer too if your lawyer had told you about it, but he never did.

* Julius Kreeger Professor of Criminal Law and Criminology, Emeritus, the University of Chicago.

1. Sandra Lockett turned down an offerlike this one before being convicted and sentenced to death. See Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 591 (1978).

File: Formatted Macro - Alschuler Created on: 5/16/2013 10:50:00 AM Last Printed: 5/28/2013 10:05:00 AM

–  –  –

Two things astonish me about the decisions in Lafler v. Cooper2 and Missouri v. Frye.3 The first is that four justices of the United States Supreme Court would allow your lawyer’s incompetence to kill you. These justices appear incredulous that anyone might think you were treated unfairly.

One of these dissenting justices, Justice Scalia, proclaims that you “received the exorbitant gold standard of American justice—a full-dress criminal trial.”4 He argues that the people who object to your execution “embrace[] the sporting-chance theory of criminal law, in which the State functions as a conscientious casinooperator, giving each player a fair chance to beat the house, that is, to serve less time than the law says he deserves.”5 In Justice Scalia’s view, you’ll get what you deserve while your co-defendants just got lucky. Never mind that the prosecutor initially acknowledged that public justice did not require your execution; never mind that, through no fault of your own, you did not get the sentence the American legal system considers normal for offenders like you; and never mind that, despite the Constitution’s promise of the assistance of counsel, it was your lawyer who did you in. In the American legal system, you got the gold.

When defense lawyers have slept through their trials, courts have noted that a sleeping lawyer is the equivalent of no lawyer at all.6 Your lawyer, however, was worse than no lawyer at all.

Without him, the prosecutor would have made his offer directly to you, and you would not be on death row. The state licenses lawyers so that people like you can rely on them, but if Justice Kennedy, the second most powerful man in America, had voted the other way, the Court would allow your execution.

2. 132 S. Ct. 1376 (2012).

3. 132 S. Ct. 1399 (2012).

4. Lafler, 132 S. Ct. at 1398 (Scalia, J., dissenting).

5. Id. Justice Thomas joined the portion of Justice Scalia’s dissenting opinion that includes this rhetoric. Chief Justice Roberts joined an earlier portion that made the same point less flamboyantly: “The defendant has been fairly tried, lawfully convicted, and properly sentenced, and any ‘remedy’ provided for this will do nothing but undo the just results of a fair adversarial process.” Id. at 1397. In a separate dissenting opinion, Justice Alito declared, “Respondent received a trial that was free of any identified constitutional error, and, as a result, there is no basis for concluding that respondent suffered prejudice....” Id. at 1398 (Alito, J., dissenting).

6. See Burdine v. Johnson, 262 F.3d 336, 349 (5th Cir. 2001) (en banc); Javor v. United States, 724 F.2d 831, 834 (9th Cir. 1984).





File: Formatted Macro - Alschuler Created on: 5/16/2013 10:50:00 AM Last Printed: 5/28/2013 10:05:00 AM

Summer 2013 Two Band-Aids 675

Stephanos Bibas describes the division between the majority and dissenting opinions as “a jurisprudential one rooted in biography and outlook.”7 Justice Scalia, he says, “approaches matters as an originalist..., regulating the eighteenth-century world of the Framers.”8 In fact, nothing at all seems “originalist” about Justice Scalia’s position. Substituting a regime of plea bargaining for the regime of jury trials ostensibly safeguarded by the Constitution would have appalled the authors of that document.9 The courts of their era strongly discouraged guilty pleas and held confessions induced by promises of leniency involuntary.10 Even if one can imagine that the Framers would have countenanced a regime of plea bargaining, it is difficult to believe they would have withheld a right to the assistance of counsel in the process that superseded the one they knew.11 Like all the other justices of the Supreme Court, Justice Scalia genuflects before the perceived necessity of plea bargaining.12 There are no originalists there.13 The second thing that astonishes me about Lafler and Frye is that the remaining five justices of the Supreme Court might also leave you on death row. While acknowledging that your constitutional rights were violated, they would allow the judge who tried and sentenced you to do nothing about it. The majority declares that the “correct” remedy in cases like yours

7. Stephanos Bibas, Taming Negotiated Justice, 122 YALE L.J. ONLINE 35, 38 (2012).

8. Id.

9. The Constitution declares that “[t]he Trial of all Crimes... shall be by Jury...,” U.S. CONST. art. III, § 2, and that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury.” U.S. CONST. amend. VI. As John Langbein notes, Americans now can replace the word “all” in these provisions with the words “virtually none.” See John H. Langbein, On the Myth of Written Constitutions: The Disappearance of Criminal Jury Trial, 15 HARV. J.L. & PUB. POL. 119, 119-20 (1992).

10. See Albert W. Alschuler, Plea Bargaining and Its History, 79 COLUM. L. REV. 1, 7The defendants in Lafler and Frye had the assistance of counsel at trial, but the lack of effective legal assistance kept them from obtaining the benefits of America’s “real” legal system. I doubt that the Framers would have cheered.

12. See Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376, 1397 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (“In the United States, we have plea bargaining a-plenty, but until today it has been regarded as a necessary evil.”).

13. Cf. Albert W. Alschuler, Herring v. United States: A Minnow or a Shark?, 7 OHIO ST. J. CRIM. L. 463, 501-11 (2009) (noting that justices who criticize the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule because it was unknown to the Framers have restricted the remedies that were known to the Framers in ways they never would have approved).

File: Formatted Macro - Alschuler Created on: 5/16/2013 10:50:00 AM Last Printed: 5/28/2013 10:05:00 AM

676 Duquesne Law Review Vol. 51

is to order the State to reoffer the plea agreement. Presuming the respondent accepts the offer, the state trial court can then exercise its discretion in determining whether to vacate the conviction[] and resentence respondent pursuant to the plea agreement... or to leave the conviction[] and sentence from trial undisturbed.14 Notice that the issue is not whether the court would have accepted your guilty plea and sentenced you in accordance with the agreement if your lawyer had been competent. It is whether sentencing you in accordance with the agreement feels like a good idea today.

The usual goal of legal remedies is to place the victim of a wrong in the position he would have occupied had the wrong not occurred, and doubts about what position he would have occupied usually are resolved against the wrongdoer. For example, before a constitutional trial error can be treated as harmless, the state usually must demonstrate “beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.”15 When the Supreme Court wishes to disregard this principle, however, it reshapes the constitutional right. You may believe, for example, that you have a right to the effective assistance of counsel, but the Supreme Court says you don’t. You have only a right to counsel whose ineffectiveness does not undermine confidence in the outcome of your trial. To establish a violation of this right, you must show not only that your “counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the ‘counsel’ guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment” but also that your counsel’s “deficient performance prejudiced the defense” by depriving you of “a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable.”16 With the Sixth Amendment right reconfigured in this way, the state need not show that your lawyer’s inadequate performance was harmless. You must show that it wasn’t.

This standard has been in place for nearly thirty years. Frye says that it requires you to demonstrate not only your lawyer’s defective performance but also a “reasonable probability” of two additional things—first, that you would have accepted the prosecutor’s offer if your lawyer had told you about it and, second, that

14. Lafler, 132 S. Ct. at 1391.

15. Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 (1967).

16. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686 (1984).

File: Formatted Macro - Alschuler Created on: 5/16/2013 10:50:00 AM Last Printed: 5/28/2013 10:05:00 AM

–  –  –

the court would have approved the deal.17 Those requirements come as no surprise, but satisfying them may not get you off death row. Satisfying these requirements will merely establish a violation of your right to counsel. Lafler then leaves the question of remedy to the trial judge’s discretion. He may restore you to the position you would have occupied if your lawyer had been competent, or he may not.18

17. 132 S. Ct. at 1409.

18. The Supreme Court apparently declined to order implementation of the sentence a capable lawyer would have obtained for you because the evidence presented at your trial might have shown that this sentence was too lenient. For example, an accomplice might have testified that you proposed robbing the liquor store, supplied the firearms, and instructed your confederates to leave no witness alive. The prosecutor might have been unaware of your accomplice’s allegations when he made his offer, and the judge might have been convinced by the accomplice’s testimony.

When a legal system is so indifferent to the truth that it bribes defendants not to contest the prosecutor’s evidence or present any evidence of their own, it seems odd to insist that sentencing judges must be able to consider every circumstance that has emerged as a result of violating a defendant’s rights. In many cases each day, courts impose sentences pursuant to plea agreements that they might have considered too lenient had they examined the evidence, and if the truth later emerges, the defendants’ sentences remain final.

Should your case be different simply because you had an inadequate lawyer?

The Supreme Court majority apparently answers this question yes, and perhaps you would have received a clearly undeserved break had your lawyer done his job. Even so, the Court might have hesitated before substituting a regime of judicial discretion for the customary (if sometimes too generous) remedial principle.

When the sentence a judge has imposed after a trial differs from the sentence the prosecutor offered before trial, the judge is likely to consider the sentence he imposed more appropriate. Is the judge’s conclusion that the pretrial offer would constitute inadequate punishment a sufficient reason for him to deny a remedy? Could he deny a remedy for this reason in every case, thereby nullifying the rulings in Lafler and Frye? Or must the judge conclude that the sentence offered by the prosecutor was grossly inappropriate or flagrantly unjust? Must the judge find that the prosecutor was unaware of a relevant circumstance at the time he made his offer? (It probably would not be difficult for a judge who has conducted a trial and examined a presentence investigation report to make such a finding.) What if the judge exercised his discretion on a different basis—concluding, for example, that he should give the defendant only the benefit of whatever portion of the prosecutor’s offer was “driven by fairness concerns”? See Wesley M. Oliver, The Indirect Potential of Lafler and Frye, 51 DUQ. L. REV. 640-41, 645 (2013).



Pages:   || 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |   ...   | 8 |


Similar works:

«SASS “I Think I’ve Been Sexually Assaulted..What Can I Do Now?” We hope you find this information useful. If you decide you do not need it any more, you can return it to SASS and then we can hand it on to another person to read. You can make arrangements to drop it in to SASS at either Galileo House, 73 Federal Street, North Hobart or Melaleuca House, 95-97 Campbell Street, Hobart or post it to PO BOX 217 North Hobart 7002. We would appreciate any feedback regarding this booklet or other...»

«e-Competitions National Competition Laws Bulletin Nullity/Voidness Nullity/Voidness : An overview of EU and national case law Anticompetitive practices, Agreement, Nullity/Voidness Note from the Editors: although the e-Competitions editors are doing their best to build a comprehensive set of the leading EU and national antitrust cases, the completeness of the database cannot be guaranteed. The present foreword seeks to provide readers with a view of the existing trends based primarily on cases...»

«João Biehl and Adriana Petryna Bodies of Rights and Therapeutic Markets Justice does not exist! Human Rights do not exist. What matters is jurisprudence. This is the invention of Law.... The challenge is to create and not to make Human Rights applicable. It is a matter of inventing jurisprudences so that, for each case, such and such thing could not have been possible.... Many times, life can be seen case by case.... It is not a matter of right of this or of that, but of situations...»

«TITLE 37 MILITARY CHAPTER 37-01 GENERAL PROVISIONS 37-01-01. Definitions.In this title, unless the context otherwise requires: 1. Active militia means the organized and uniformed military forces of this state known as the North Dakota national guard and the reserve militia when called to active service. 2. Active service means state active duty in case of public disaster, riot, tumult, breach of the peace, resistance of process, or the threat thereof, whenever called in aid of civil...»

«MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF THE NEWTON CITY COUNCIL December 11, 2012 – 7:00 P.M. The regular meeting of the Newton City Council was held on Tuesday, December 11, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall. PRESENT: Mayor Anne P. Stedman, Mayor Pro Tem Bill Lutz, Council Members Mary Bess Lawing, Tom Rowe, Robert C. Abernethy, Jr., Wayne Dellinger and Wes Weaver STAFF: City Manager Todd Clark, City Clerk Amy S. Falowski, City Attorney Larry Pitts, City Department Heads, and members...»

«I assume that one thing most lawyers know about is coffee, so here's my Friday afternoon question: 12 Cup Coffeemaker with a Drip Basket, like a Mr. Coffee You only want to make 2 cups You have a standard size coffee scoop I guess you use 12 16 oz water How many scoops of coffee to make a good cup of coffee? Help! I'm sleepless in St. Louis! Ah, what an interesting question. Well, as all good lawyers know, it depends. Some coffee makers have a special setting for under 4 cups of coffee. Others...»

«HEARSAY AND CONFRONTATION ISSUES POST-CRAWFORD: THE CHANGING COURSE OF TERRORISM TRIALS JESSICA K. WEIGEL* In 2004, the Supreme Court overhauled the established interpretation of the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment when it decided Crawford v. Washington. This Note attempts to augment the existing literature by elucidating the Crawford standard in the context of terrorism prosecutions in Article III courts. It details the shifts between Ohio v. Roberts and Crawford, analyzes...»

«Laws 2013, 2, 337–361; doi:10.3390/laws2030337 OPEN ACCESS laws ISSN 2075-471X www.mdpi.com/journal/laws Article “The Mad”, “The Bad”, “The Victim”: Gendered Constructions of Women Who Kill within the Criminal Justice System Siobhan Weare The Law School, Bowland North, Lancaster University, Bailrigg, Lancaster, LA1 4YN, UK; E-Mail: s.weare@lancaster.ac.uk; Tel.: +44-1524-592-319 Received: 22 July 2013; in revised form: 30 August 2013 / Accepted: 11 September 2013 / Published: 18...»

«Hydrogel Vision Corporation Quality Systems & Quality Assurance Manual Document Title: Fitting Guide – Clarity H2O Revision Level: 1 Document ID: QCFQ-032 Revision Date: 1/2010 Page 1 PROFESSIONAL FITTING GUIDE FOR THE CLARITY H2O® (hioxifilcon D) Soft Contact Lens for Daily Wear CAUTION: FEDERAL LAW RESTRICTS THIS DEVICE TO SALE BY OR ON THE ORDER OF A LICENSED PRACTITIONER Please read this guide carefully and follow the instruction so that you receive full satisfaction from your lenses....»

«GADGETS, GAMES, AND GIZMOS FOR LEARNING Tools and Techniques for Transferring Know-How from Boomers to Gamers Karl M. Kapp Foreword by John Beck John Wiley & Sons, Inc. About This Book Why is this topic important? It is almost impossible to underestimate the knowledge gap that will be caused by the retirement of the baby boomer generation. Scientists, CEOs, senior faculty members, nuclear technicians, doctors, lawyers, sales managers, seasoned trainers, and other highly skilled individuals are...»

«Amanda Lynn Jacobsen U.S. counsel for abu Zubaydah European Parliament, Brussels Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs hearing on: “What is new on the alleged CIA illegal detention and transfer of prisoners in Europe?” Tuesday 27 March 2012 Thank you very much for having me here today. My name is Amanda Jacobsen. I am an American attorney, and I represent current Guantánamo Bay prisoner, and former CIA secret “black site” prisoner, Zayn al Abidin Muhammad Husayn (a man...»

«PROSPECTUS ALFM Euro Bond Fund 17/F, BPI Head Office Building, Ayala Avenue corner Paseo de Roxas, Makati City 1226 Tel No. (02) 845-5424 (An Open-end investment company organized under Philippine Laws) An Offer of up to the Number of Authorized Shares of ALFM Euro Bond Fund at an Offer Price of Net Asset Value per Share on the date of subscription ALFM EURO BOND FUND Number of Authorized Shares 80,000 Minimum Initial Investment EUR 500.00 PAR value PhP 10,000.00 Securities will be traded over...»





 
<<  HOME   |    CONTACTS
2016 www.dissertation.xlibx.info - Dissertations, online materials

Materials of this site are available for review, all rights belong to their respective owners.
If you do not agree with the fact that your material is placed on this site, please, email us, we will within 1-2 business days delete him.