Interesting discussion of the two ineffective assistance of counsel cases argued yesterday, November 1 in the U.S. Supreme Court. - GWC
Ineffective assistance of counsel – Lafler and Frye : SCOTUSblog: Intro by Aaron Tang, moderator
On remedy my pick is:
'via Blog this'
"In Lafler, the attorney mistakenly told the defendant that the state could not establish a necessary element of its case – intent to murder – because he had shot the victim below her waist, the state could not establish a necessary element of its case (intent to murder); based on that advice, the defendant rejected a guilty plea, was ultimately convicted at trial, and was eventually sentenced to a much longer prison term. In Frye, the defendant’s counsel simply failed to inform him that a plea bargain had been offered at all, allegedly leading him to enter a guilty plea on terms far less favorable than he would have received had he agreed to the state’s offer. In each case, the Court is now considering whether the defendant-respondents can seek relief on the ground that their attorneys were constitutionally ineffective and, if so, what remedies are available to them."
On remedy my pick is:
As to the remedy, “[c]ases involving Sixth Amendment deprivations are subject to the general rule that remedies should be tailored to the injury suffered from the constitutional violation and should not unnecessarily infringe on competing interests.” United States v. Morrison, 449 U.S. 361, 364 (1981). Therefore, courts must “identify and then neutralize the taint by tailoring relief appropriate in the circumstances.” Id. at 365. Based on this, the trial courts should be given discretion to create remedies that are the most fitting under the circumstances for the particular case. In some cases this will mean enforcing the original plea bargain’s terms and in others, it will mean vacating the conviction and starting over.
'via Blog this'
Aliza Kaplan – 2 Promoted Comments