The case is Lafler v. Cooper, paired with Missouri v. Frye, focusing on whether defendants who reject a plea offer because of bad advice from their attorneys are entitled to relief if, as a result of the bad advice, they receive a longer sentence than the plea offer. The attorney's advice in the Michigan case was palpably bad. Cooper was accused of shooting a woman; significantly for purposes of this case, the shots were all below the waist. He was charged with assault with intent to murder. The plea offer was for a minimum sentence of 51 to 85 months in prison for a plea to the assault charge. Cooper's lawyer told him to reject the plea because the fact that the victim was injured only below the waist prevented the state from establishing an element of the charge, i.e., intent to murder. (Say what?)
ScotusBlog rounded up the pre-argument commentary:
The Brennan Center, Adam Liptak of the New York Times, and Nina Totenberg of NPR preview the cases, as do Anthony Franze and Jeremy McLaughlin for this blog. The editorial board of the New York Times also weighed in on Frye over the weekend, arguing that “[t]he Constitution’s guarantee of effective counsel . . . means little if it does not include a right to know about plea offers.”
Here's some post-argument analysis:
NYT: "Justices Hear Arguments in Faulty-Lawyer Cases"
AP: "Court reluctant on plea bargains after sentencing"
Huffington Post: "Supreme Court Looks At Plea Bargain Advice: How Much Bad Lawyering Is Allowed?"
