Truth, Justice, and the American Style Plea Bargain

Albany Law Review, Vol. 77, No. 3, p. 825, 2013/2014

56 Pages Posted: 22 Oct 2014  

Ken Strutin

Government of the State of New York - New York State Defenders Association (NYSDA)

Date Written: 2014

Abstract

In the 2011 term, the Supreme Court decided two cases, Missouri v. Frye and Lafler v. Cooper, which highlighted whether the Sixth Amendment right to counsel safeguarded the integrity of the trial or encompassed non-trial facets such as the plea bargain. This line of decisions has been followed most recently by Burt v. Titlow, which further defined the role of postconviction record-making in assessing the fundamental question: Did the right to effective assistance of counsel protect the accuracy of the verdict or the fairness of the process?

Through the prism of recent Supreme Court plea bargaining decisions this Article examines their implications for the competing goals of truth versus process. Part I frames the argument about the nature of criminal justice and the tension between fact-finding trials and resolution making plea negotiations. Then, those values are scrutinized in the context of three recent and watershed Supreme Court decisions: Part II Missouri v. Frye, Part III Lafler v. Cooper, and Part IV Burt v. Titlow. Lastly, Part V considers the lessons of wrongful incarceration as guideposts to align accuracy with certainty in the administration of justice.

Suggested Citation

Strutin, Ken, Truth, Justice, and the American Style Plea Bargain (2014). Albany Law Review, Vol. 77, No. 3, p. 825, 2013/2014. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2512480

Ken Strutin (Contact Author)

Government of the State of New York - New York State Defenders Association (NYSDA) ( email )

194 Washington Avenue
Albany, NY 12210
United States

HOME PAGE: http://www.nysda.org

Register to save articles to
your library

Register

Paper statistics

Downloads
171
rank
157,821
Abstract Views
703
PlumX