Systemic Barriers to Effective Assistance of Counsel in Plea Bargaining

30 Pages Posted: 5 Aug 2014 Last revised: 17 Nov 2015

Peter A. Joy

Washington University in St. Louis - School of Law

Rodney J. Uphoff

University of Missouri School of Law

Date Written: August 4, 2014

Abstract

In a trio of recent cases, Padilla v. Kentucky, Missouri v. Frye, and Lafler v. Cooper, the U.S. Supreme Court has focused its attention on defense counsel's pivotal role during the plea bargaining process . At the same time that the Court has signaled its willingness to consider ineffective assistance of counsel claims at the plea stage, prosecutors are increasingly requiring defendants to sign waivers that include waiving all constitutional and procedural errors, even unknown ineffective assistance of counsel claims such as those that proved successful in Padilla and Frye. Had Jose Padilla and Galin Frye been forced to sign a waiver of any ineffective assistance of counsel claim as a condition of entering their pleas, and if the Supreme Court approved of such waivers, then neither Padilla nor Frye would have secured the relief the Court held that they deserved.

Waivers of ineffective assistance of counsel claims pose both legal and ethical issues. Legally, the waivers serve to undermine a defendant’s due process rights — recognized by the Court in Gideon v. Wainwright — by requiring the defendant not only to waive what is unknown to them at the time of waiver, but to do so even when based upon bad advice of ineffective counsel. Ethically, a defense lawyer counseling a defendant to waive ineffective assistance of counsel claims has a personal conflict of interest with the client, because the lawyer has reputational and other interests in not having the lawyer’s representation of the client determined to be ineffective.

Whether the Supreme Court would approve a waiver of an ineffective assistance claim that would negate the due process right to effective assistance of counsel is not yet resolved. Such a decision, however, would immunize much incompetent lawyering from any judicial scrutiny altogether.

This article begins by examining the systemic barriers defense counsel face to provide meaningful advice to criminal defendants contemplating a guilty plea These barriers include the underfunding of defense services in many jurisdictions and the coerciveness of the plea bargaining process. Next, the article analyzes the law and ethics of waivers of ineffective assistance of counsel claims and whether such waivers should be permissible. We contend that such waivers should not be enforceable for both legal and ethical reasons. Permitting waivers of ineffective assistance of counsel claims not only constitutes judicial acceptance of a prosecutorial veto of the Court’s recent decisions regarding plea bargaining, but also ensures that more defendants never receive the effective assistance of counsel during plea bargaining.

Keywords: plea bargaining, ethics, criminal procedure, criminal law, professional responsibility, due process, waiver, plea waiver, Gideon, Padilla, Frye, Lafler

JEL Classification: K14, K41

Suggested Citation

Joy, Peter A. and Uphoff, Rodney J., Systemic Barriers to Effective Assistance of Counsel in Plea Bargaining (August 4, 2014). 99 Iowa Law Review 2103 (2014); Washington University in St. Louis Legal Studies Research Paper No. 14-08-03; University of Missouri School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2014-23. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2475990 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2475990

Peter A. Joy (Contact Author)

Washington University in St. Louis - School of Law ( email )

Campus Box 1120
St. Louis, MO 63130
United States
313-935-6445 (Phone)

Rodney J. Uphoff

University of Missouri School of Law ( email )

Missouri Avenue & Conley Avenue
Columbia, MO 65211
United States

Register to save articles to
your library

Register

Paper statistics

Downloads
173
rank
157,874
Abstract Views
1,136
PlumX