Right to Counsel

Lafler v. Cooper

Established the right to effective council in plea negotiations The attorney for the defendant told him that he should reject the plea bargain the prosecution is offering in an attempted murder case because the victim was shot in the leg, so they can't possibly convict you of attempted murder. How is the obvious bad advice related to the crime of prejudice when the whole issue was whether the plea bargain would be accepted? What the Supreme Court said is if a defendant like Cooper showed he would've taken the plea offer if he hadn't gotten the advice. The majority said in a 5-4 vote that there is a reasonable chance he would've accepted the offer if he had gotten competent advice, so this was inadequate counsel.

Missouri v. Frye

Frye is charged with driving with a revoked license. He is charged with a felony for prior convictions of the same offense. What happened with the plea bargain process is the prosecution gives a written document to Frye's lawyer where they offer two deals: take your pick. For whatever reason, Frye's attorney never tells him about the offers. Frye ends up pleading guilty with no plea bargain and gets a heavy sentence. Ultimately, he learns about the letter. The question is, "Was there deficient performance in the failure to inform Frye of the offers?" The court said yes.

Gold star

Gideons Trumpet by Anthony Lewis

Hinton v. Alabama

Hinton was convicted of murder in 1985 based entirely on police tests. The Defense Attorney wanted to hire an expert to challenge the police test but he hired an incompetent expert because he didn't know funds would be available from the court to hire a real expert. Later on, the court ruled unanimously he had been denied adequate counsel because there was only one piece of evidence (police testing) and the person to prove this was incompetent. In 1985, the next year, 30 years after he was put on death row, it was determined that the evidence from the original trial was bad and that his incompetent expert had not effectively challenged, so he was released.

1. Whether the right to counsel implies the right to an attorney of one's own choice(yes) and whether it implies the right to refuse to be represented by an attorney. (yes)

In United States v. Gonzales-Lopez in 2006, the court held that indeed someone has the right to bring in any licensed attorney of their own choosing. In Faretta v. California, the court addressed whether someone has the right to refuse an attorney. In fact, the right to an attorney implies a right to represent yourself. In a 6-3 vote, the majority held that someone who adamantly says they do not want an attorney, the judge must accept that. Justice Blackmun said we basically made being a fool a constitutional right. The court has drawn back on those cases. In Martinez v. Court of Appeals in 2000, the Supreme Court said unanimously that you do not have the right to act without an attorney in an appellate court. What happens in appeals courts is all about law so it makes no sense to allow someone to argue a case if they are not expert in the law. b. The Supreme Court addressed a series of stages either before or after trials. When people are being questioned by police, they have the right to an attorney. In a preliminary heart, there is a right to an attorney. Effectively, in one providing their own attorney, this is true in any subsequent appeal as well.

Lassiter v. Dept of Social Services

Lassiter was in an administrative proceeding about her legal rights of parenting. She was indigent and they had not given her any legal help. She defended herself on her own and the outcome was bad. Given the high stakes, should she have been provided an attorney? The Supreme Court rules against her in a 5-4 vote. They are not sympathetic to the idea that even in high stakes civil cases, someone should be provided an attorney if they can't afford one.

ii. Padilla v. Kentucky

Padilla is a non-citizen charged with a serious offense and is worried that if he pleads guilty as his attorney has advised him, that once the criminal procedure is completed, he will be deported. The attorney is wrong. Padilla plead guilty and was scheduled for deportation. The question was not about the criminal case, but a larger outcome, does that mean inadequate counsel? The Supreme Court said by a 7-2 vote that it does. It is true that the consequence that result from very bad advice was not a consequence of the criminal case and the attorney did not need to be an expert on immigration law to know this.

Lee v. United States

Situation: Lee was caught with drugs. Under impression that he wasn't getting deported. Lee's attorney had assured him that he would not get deported if he pleaded guilty. . Lee argued that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Question: For the purpose of analyzing an ineffective assistance of counsel claim under Strickland v. Washington, should courts consider it always irrational for a longtime legal resident of the United States to reject a plea offer in the face of strong evidence of guilt when the plea will result in mandatory deportation? Decisions: Circuit Court= United States Violated the 6th amendment

Turner v rodgers

This is an actual court case (family related). The defendant failed to pay child support and there was a civil contempt against him. There is a criminal and civil version of contempt, and this was still a civil proceeding technically. The question is given the stakes of jail as an indigent, should he be given the right to an attorney? The court unanimously said no, but given that he didn't have the right to an attorney, other state safeguards should have been used (in a case where he could go to jail, there is an obligation to make sure his procedural rights are protected in other ways) i. In civil cases, the court seems to be unanimous about civil cases and attorneys. No.

2. The Supreme Court has ruled that the right to counsel implies the right to adequate counsel. In its Strickland decision, what did the Court say that a defendant must show to prove that the right to adequate counsel was denied? (The full text of the rules is posted on Carmen.) How has the Court interpreted the Strickland requirements in later decisions? One key decision is Lee v. United States, which dealt with the second part of the Strickland rules. In reading the decision syllabus, focus on which part of the Strickland requirements was at issue in the case, what rule the Court laid out for applying that requirement to rejection of a plea bargain, and how the Court applied that rule to Lee's situation.

a. In Strickland, The court said the defendant must prove two things: 1. that the performance of the counsel was deficient (it was so bad it was almost as if they didn't have a lawyer), and 2. the deficiency of their lawyer prejudiced their case, as in, it made a difference in the outcome. There was no fair trial as a result of this deficiency. Judging whether a bad job about an attorney is very subjective. Both of them are. The justices in establishing the Strickland Rules knew they were not solving every issue, but they gave a base. This applies both to lawyers people provide for themselves and lawyers for indigent defendants. What lower courts have had to do much more often is applying those standards to specific cases

1. In what types of cases do indigent defendants have the right to be supplied with an attorney, and at what stages of criminal proceedings does that right apply?

a. The Supreme Court starts with felony cases, as defined as cases where the defendant can be sentenced to more than 1 year. Felony charges at the federal level, an indigent attorney has the right to be supplied with an attorney. In Betts v. Brady in 1942, the Court addressed whether this applied at the state level. The court said that a state defendant in a felony case, if they are indigent, does not have the right to be provided with an attorney. Two decades later, the Court overturned this in Gideon v. Wainwright in 1963. The court unanimously held that state felons should be provided with attorneys. Furthermore, the Supreme Court said that at all the stages in which someone has the right to their own attorney, an indigent defendant has a right to an attorney.

3. What has the Supreme Court said about the right to an attorney for indigent litigants in civil (that is, non-criminal) proceedings?

i. In civil cases, the court seems to be unanimous about civil cases and attorneys. No.

2. What are the major systems that are used to provide attorneys to indigent defendants, and what do we know about their effectiveness?

a. There are two primary systems: public defendants and the assigned counsel system. This simply means that lawyers are assigned on a case by case basis to represent indigent defendants. There are some systems that are hybrids of the two. Counties with large numbers of defendants typically have public defender systems and small counties have an assigned counsel system. Public defender systems work very well in one sense. Even if you take a rookie attorney, by dealing with cases all the time, public defenders are usually pretty good, but they are strapped with funds. In terms of competence, they are good. In terms of money, they are weak. The problem with assigned counsel systems is usually money. In Cleveland, currently, for work they do outside of court, lawyers get $40 an hour for work outside of a case and $50 inside court. It means that lawyers assigned to these cases have an incentive to finish these cases quickly. The most serious problems in both of these systems arise in death penalty cases because there is a lot of work and a lot of expenses. There has been concern about poor representation. A lot of defendants who are not indigent are not rich. They scrape together money. In a place where there is a well-functioning public defender system, they may be better off with a public defender than a hired lawyer.