Lafler, Frye, and the Subtle Art of Winning by Losing
University of Virginia School of Law
December 1, 2012
Federal Sentencing Reporter, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 126-130, 2012
Virginia Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper No. 2013-18
In its recent decisions, Lafler v. Cooper and Missouri v. Frye, the Court recognized defendants’ rights to effective assistance of plea-bargaining counsel. Counter-intuitively, however, it is the government that may come to benefit most from the Court’s rulings against it, not only because a well-regulated plea-bargaining market facilitates frequent and expeditious plea deals, but also because prosecutors exercise terrific control over that market. Indeed, by making plea offers that are too attractive to reasonably refuse, prosecutors may constitutionally conscript defense counsel to persuade defendants to plead guilty. Moreover, prosecutors shape the practice norms against which the competency of bargaining counsel is now measured.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 7
Keywords: Plea-bargaining, guilty pleas, ineffective assistance of counsel, right to counsel, Gideon v. Wainwright, Lafler v. Cooper, Missouri v. Frye, defense counsel, defense attorneys, prosecutorsAccepted Paper Series
Date posted: May 9, 2013 ; Last revised: September 18, 2013
© 2013 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo3 in 0.408 seconds