Supreme Court extends effective lawyer right to plea deals

IP is over the quota
IP is over the quota
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday extended the constitutional right to effective legal assistance in cases of plea bargain deals that are rejected or lapsed due to bad lawyer advice.

Splitting by a 5-4 vote, with moderate conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy joining the court's four liberals in two cases, the majority held that the right to effective counsel applied to informal plea bargain negotiations that take place between criminal defendants and prosecutors.

In the second ruling, the majority held a defendant must show "a reasonable probability" the plea offer would have been accepted by the judge when a lawyer's bad advice caused the defendant to reject the plea bargain and then stand trial.

The pair of rulings in cases from Missouri and Michigan could allow convicted criminals to seek to reopen their cases after they passed up favorable plea bargains because of ineffective assistance of their lawyers.

In both cases, the criminals said they had been denied their constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel because of mistakes by their attorneys during plea negotiations. The majority agreed.

The rulings could have broad impact as about 95 percent of all criminal cases nationwide are resolved through a plea agreement, not a trial.

Kennedy in one of the opinions said that a defense counsel as a general rule has a duty to communicate to the client formal prosecution offers of a plea deal on terms and conditions that may be favorable to the accused.

To show harm when a plea offer has lapsed or been rejected because of a lawyer's bad performance, Kennedy said defendants must show they probably would have accepted the more favorable plea offer if they had received effective legal advice and that the plea deal would have been accepted in court.

When a defendant shows ineffective assistance has caused the rejection of a plea leading to more severe sentence at trial, the remedy must "neutralize the taint" of a constitutional violation," he said in the other opinion.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia dissented.

COULD SOW CONFUSION

Scalia, who took the rare step of reading parts of his dissent from the bench, said there was no doubt that the defendants in the cases were convicted and sentenced under fair, constitutionally valid procedures.

"Until today, no one has though that there is a constitutional right to a plea bargain," he said. "Today's opinion opens a whole new field of constitutionalized criminal procedure: the field of plea-bargaining law. The court announces this new field in opinions that almost seem designed to sow confusion."

"In today's cases, the court's zeal to bring perfection to everything requires the reversal of perfectly valid, eminently just, convictions. It is not wise; it is not right," Scalia concluded.

In the Michigan case, Anthony Cooper passed up a plea deal that would have sent him to prison for four to seven years for shooting a woman four times.

His lawyer told him he would not be convicted of assault with intent to murder because he shot the woman below the waist and missed a shot to her head.

Cooper went to trial, was convicted of assault with intent to murder and on other charges, and received a sentence of up to 30 years in prison.

In the other case from Missouri, Galin Frye was charged with driving without a license in 2007. A prosecutor offered two alternative plea agreements.

In one, the prosecutor said Frye could plead guilty in exchange for a 90-day sentence. But Frye's lawyer at the time failed to tell him about the offers.

After the offers expired and after Frye was arrested again for driving with a revoked license, he pleaded guilty and received a sentence of three years in prison.

The Supreme Court's majority opinions sided with Frye and Cooper and sent the cases back to lower courts for further proceedings.

The Obama administration had supported the argument by prosecutors in the two cases that the constitutional right to counsel only ensured a fair trial, and that defendants do not have a right to a plea bargain, including one that results in a lighter sentence.

The Supreme Court cases are Lafler v. Cooper, No. 10-209, and Missouri v. Frye, No. 10-444.

(Reporting by James Vicini; Editing by Anthony Boadle)

View the original article here

Stolen Valor Act at Supreme Court: Is lying about being a hero a right?

IP is over the quota
IP is over the quota
When Xavier Alvarez stood up and introduced himself at a local water district meeting in July 2007, he had no idea he was about to commit a federal crime.

“I’m a retired Marine of 25 years,” he told the other board members in Pomona, Calif. “I retired in the year 2001. Back in 1987, I was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. I got wounded many times by the same guy. I’m still around.”

In most social situations, such statements might elicit interested nods, admiring smiles, and perhaps heart-felt thanks for his brave service to the nation.

But it turns out Mr. Alvarez never served a day in the US military, had never been wounded, and – most important – was never awarded the Medal of Honor.

How much do you know about the US Constitution? A quiz.

After his false claim was exposed, the Federal Bureau of Investigation showed up. Alvarez was soon indicted for allegedly violating the Stolen Valor Act of 2005, a law that makes it a federal crime to falsely claim to have been awarded a military medal.

His lawyer attacked the indictment as a violation of the First Amendment, arguing that Americans have a free-speech right to make false and outrageous claims about themselves without facing criminal prosecution from a government truth squad.

A federal judge upheld the indictment, but a US appeals court panel reversed.

On Wednesday, Alvarez’s case arrives at the US Supreme Court, where the justices are being asked to decide whether the Stolen Valor Act is an unconstitutional regulation of free speech or an acceptable effort by the government to punish an alleged liar.

The high court has never directly addressed the issue of lying about military awards, and it is not clear how the justices may decide it.

The Supreme Court has recognized a number of categories of speech that are unworthy of full First Amendment protection. They include obscenity, libel and defamation, incitement to imminent harm, and fraud. In each of those areas the underlying speech causes a concrete injury.

Critics of the Stolen Valor Act say it requires no underlying injury. Any false statement claiming receipt of a medal may be punished. These critics suggest the best remedy for such false statements is not criminal punishment but more speech, particularly truthful speech to expose the lie.

The Obama administration is urging the court to uphold the restriction as a valid regulation of a discrete kind of false speech that lacks significant constitutional value.

Alvarez counters that the court has never before declared that such false statements are unworthy of constitutional protection. His lawyer says the government’s position marks a radical departure from free speech principles that could lead to sanctions against those who exaggerate, use hyperbole, or engage in satire.

“For good or bad, right or wrong, everyone lies. Xavier Alvarez is no exception. He told a bunch of whoppers,” wrote Alvarez’s lawyer, Deputy Federal Public Defender Jonathan Libby, in his brief to the court.

“Exaggerated anecdotes, barroom braggadocio, and cocktail party puffery have always been thought to be beyond the realm of government reach and to pass without fear of criminal punishment,” Mr. Libby said.

The US Solicitor General’s Office disagrees, arguing that the Stolen Valor Act is aimed at achieving an important government objective and that it is narrowly focused to achieve that objective.

“The government employs military honors to convey a message to the public that the recipient has been endorsed by the government as part of a select group,” Solicitor General Donald Verrilli wrote in his brief to the court. “The aggregate effect of false claims undermines that purpose … by diluting the medals’ message of prestige and honor.”

The law seeks to punish only those who knowingly make a false claim of having been awarded a medal, Mr. Verrilli said. A person is unlikely to make such a claim out of confusion or by mistake, he said.

“Content-based restrictions on false factual statements are consistent with the First Amendment if they are supported by a strong government interest and provide adequate ‘breathing space’ for fully protected speech,” Verrilli’s brief said.

Alvarez’s lawyer, Mr. Libby, openly admits his client is a liar. But he says Alvarez was pilloried in his community as an “idiot” and a “jerk” after his false statements were exposed.

Libby says Americans lie all the time in social situations and that if his client loses his case, the government may soon be investigating the veracity of a broader range of facetious statements.

“Xavier Alvarez lied. He lied when he claimed to have played professional hockey for the Detroit Red Wings. He lied when he claimed to be married to a Mexican starlet whose appearance in public caused paparazzi to swoon. He lied when he claimed to be an engineer. He lied when he claimed to have rescued the American ambassador during the Iranian hostage crisis, and when he said that he was shot going back to grab the American flag,” Libby said in his brief.

What’s the harm, Libby asked in his brief. There is no evidence that anyone relied on Alvarez’s false claims about hockey or military heroics.

“The government’s interest in protecting the reputation of military medals is legitimate, but not compelling,” Libby said. “False claimants cannot tarnish the reputation of medal winners.”

“The government seeks to create a new test – completely unmoored from this court’s precedents,” Libby said.

“Falsehoods are valuable for innumerable reasons: in refining truth, in expressing personal autonomy, and in greasing the wheels of social interaction,” Libby said. “More than that, there is a realm of harmless prattle and puffery generally considered beyond government control.”

How much do you know about the US Constitution? A quiz.

Get daily or weekly updates from CSMonitor.com delivered to your inbox. Sign up today.

View the original article here

Stolen Valor Act at Supreme Court: Is lying about being a hero a right?

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
When Xavier Alvarez stood up and introduced himself at a local water district meeting in July 2007, he had no idea he was about to commit a federal crime.

“I’m a retired Marine of 25 years,” he told the other board members in Pomona, Calif. “I retired in the year 2001. Back in 1987, I was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. I got wounded many times by the same guy. I’m still around.”

In most social situations, such statements might elicit interested nods, admiring smiles, and perhaps heart-felt thanks for his brave service to the nation.

But it turns out Mr. Alvarez never served a day in the US military, had never been wounded, and – most important – was never awarded the Medal of Honor.

How much do you know about the US Constitution? A quiz.

After his false claim was exposed, the Federal Bureau of Investigation showed up. Alvarez was soon indicted for allegedly violating the Stolen Valor Act of 2005, a law that makes it a federal crime to falsely claim to have been awarded a military medal.

His lawyer attacked the indictment as a violation of the First Amendment, arguing that Americans have a free-speech right to make false and outrageous claims about themselves without facing criminal prosecution from a government truth squad.

A federal judge upheld the indictment, but a US appeals court panel reversed.

On Wednesday, Alvarez’s case arrives at the US Supreme Court, where the justices are being asked to decide whether the Stolen Valor Act is an unconstitutional regulation of free speech or an acceptable effort by the government to punish an alleged liar.

The high court has never directly addressed the issue of lying about military awards, and it is not clear how the justices may decide it.

The Supreme Court has recognized a number of categories of speech that are unworthy of full First Amendment protection. They include obscenity, libel and defamation, incitement to imminent harm, and fraud. In each of those areas the underlying speech causes a concrete injury.

Critics of the Stolen Valor Act say it requires no underlying injury. Any false statement claiming receipt of a medal may be punished. These critics suggest the best remedy for such false statements is not criminal punishment but more speech, particularly truthful speech to expose the lie.

The Obama administration is urging the court to uphold the restriction as a valid regulation of a discrete kind of false speech that lacks significant constitutional value.

Alvarez counters that the court has never before declared that such false statements are unworthy of constitutional protection. His lawyer says the government’s position marks a radical departure from free speech principles that could lead to sanctions against those who exaggerate, use hyperbole, or engage in satire.

“For good or bad, right or wrong, everyone lies. Xavier Alvarez is no exception. He told a bunch of whoppers,” wrote Alvarez’s lawyer, Deputy Federal Public Defender Jonathan Libby, in his brief to the court.

“Exaggerated anecdotes, barroom braggadocio, and cocktail party puffery have always been thought to be beyond the realm of government reach and to pass without fear of criminal punishment,” Mr. Libby said.

The US Solicitor General’s Office disagrees, arguing that the Stolen Valor Act is aimed at achieving an important government objective and that it is narrowly focused to achieve that objective.

“The government employs military honors to convey a message to the public that the recipient has been endorsed by the government as part of a select group,” Solicitor General Donald Verrilli wrote in his brief to the court. “The aggregate effect of false claims undermines that purpose … by diluting the medals’ message of prestige and honor.”

The law seeks to punish only those who knowingly make a false claim of having been awarded a medal, Mr. Verrilli said. A person is unlikely to make such a claim out of confusion or by mistake, he said.

“Content-based restrictions on false factual statements are consistent with the First Amendment if they are supported by a strong government interest and provide adequate ‘breathing space’ for fully protected speech,” Verrilli’s brief said.

Alvarez’s lawyer, Mr. Libby, openly admits his client is a liar. But he says Alvarez was pilloried in his community as an “idiot” and a “jerk” after his false statements were exposed.

Libby says Americans lie all the time in social situations and that if his client loses his case, the government may soon be investigating the veracity of a broader range of facetious statements.

“Xavier Alvarez lied. He lied when he claimed to have played professional hockey for the Detroit Red Wings. He lied when he claimed to be married to a Mexican starlet whose appearance in public caused paparazzi to swoon. He lied when he claimed to be an engineer. He lied when he claimed to have rescued the American ambassador during the Iranian hostage crisis, and when he said that he was shot going back to grab the American flag,” Libby said in his brief.

What’s the harm, Libby asked in his brief. There is no evidence that anyone relied on Alvarez’s false claims about hockey or military heroics.

“The government’s interest in protecting the reputation of military medals is legitimate, but not compelling,” Libby said. “False claimants cannot tarnish the reputation of medal winners.”

“The government seeks to create a new test – completely unmoored from this court’s precedents,” Libby said.

“Falsehoods are valuable for innumerable reasons: in refining truth, in expressing personal autonomy, and in greasing the wheels of social interaction,” Libby said. “More than that, there is a realm of harmless prattle and puffery generally considered beyond government control.”

How much do you know about the US Constitution? A quiz.

Get daily or weekly updates from CSMonitor.com delivered to your inbox. Sign up today.

View the original article here

The stolen Valor Act, the Supreme Court: the hero of the right to the top?

When Xavier Alvarez rose to and use of the local water district meeting in July 2007, he was he was committed to a federal crime in the idea.

"I am a retired Marine for the last 25 years," he told the other members of the Government of Pomona, Calif., "I retired in 2001. In 1987, I was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. The number of times that the same guy was haavoittaneet. I am still around. "

To achieve the greatest possible social circumstances such statements may be removed from the nods, admiring smiles and perhaps the heart-felt thanks to his brave service of the nation.

But Mr. Alvarez is never acted in the United States army had ever been was wounded and the most important-had been granted to ever Medal of Honor.

How much do you know about US-Constitution? Quiz.

When FALSE, the application had to be exposed in the course of the investigation the Bureau showed. The charges of allegedly stolen Valor Alvarez soon breach the Act of 2005, which makes it easier for the federal crime require the false witness has been awarded the military medal.

His lawyer was the first part of the amendment, arguing that the Americans have the right to free speech as a serious indictment of false and outrageous claims about themselves without facing criminal syytteeseenasettamista the Government's truth-team.

The federal judge to accept the award, but the US appeals court panel reversed.

On Wednesday, Alvarez in the case, if the justices arrive at curiae has been asked to decide whether the stolen Valor Act of the Constitutional Court, subject to the approval of the regulation of free speech or the fishing effort of the Government to punish the alleged liar.

The High court never directly to the information about the military awards and has worked on the top it is not clear how the justices may decide it.

The Supreme Court is in the recognized throughout the first part of the amendment, the President of the categories themselves unworthy of protection. In the obscenity, libel, and defamation, incitement to imminent and fraud. On the basis of the concrete in the field, the Chairman of the cause of the injury.

Critics, the stolen Valor Act say it requires on the basis of the injury. The date of receipt of the request, the winner of the false statement offense. These critics Suggest such false statements, the best compensation does not constitute criminal punishment, but More speech, in particular, the truthful speech of the lie for the software.

The Obama administration has taken the Court to keep a kind of FALSE as Discrete speech that significant constitutional value is not a valid option.

Alvarez, counters that the Court has never before been such false statements are themselves unworthy of the protection of the Constitution. His lawyer says the Government's position with regard to the means of free speech principles, which may result in sanctions against those who exaggerate the, use the Hype, or to carry out the satire was a radical departure.

"Good or bad, right or wrong, all of the power. Xavier Alvarez is no exception. He told whoppers, "wrote Walter Alvarez, Deputy Federal Public Defender, lawyer, Jonathan Libby in his brief to the Court of justice.

"The Exaggerated anecdotes, barroom braggadocio and cocktail party always believed the Government's reach is the puffery in the realm, and to communicate without fear of punishment in criminal law," Mr. Libby said.

Disagree with the United States Solicitor General from Office, arguing that the stolen Valor Act is targeted to the important government objective and that it is strictly necessary in order to achieve this objective.

"In the service of the Government of the military honors to pass to the message, select the recipient of the group as part of the Government," Solicitor General Donald Verrilli wrote in his brief to the Court of justice. "The total effect of invalidating this … by diluting the medals of the prestige and honor of the message."

The law aims to punish only those who make the committed deliberately false claim to be awarded the Medal, Mr. Verrilli said. The person is not likely to require the use of confusion or mistake, he said.

"False statements of fact is based on the contents of the first part of the amendment, provided that they support the strong interest and provide adequate space for the ' remain ' fully protected speech," Verrilli said: short.

Alvarez's lawyer, Mr. Libby granted in a transparent manner, he was a liar. But she says Alvarez was pilloried for his community, "idiot" and "jerk" after his false statements would be.

Libby says the Americans lie social situations, and that if he loses the case, the Government may soon to examine the broader facetious accounts.

"Xavier Alvarez lied. He lied when he claimed to have had professional hockey Detroit Red Wings. He lied when he said that he is married to Mexican starlet of the public caused by the appearance of the paparazzi swoon. He lied when he claimed that the engineer. "He lied when he claimed to have rescued the American Ambassador, during the Iran hostage crisis, and when he said that he has shot, grab the American flag goes back to," Libby said in his brief.

What is the damage, Libby invited her in. There is no evidence that anyone rely on Alvarez's the hockey or heroics.

"The Government's interest in protecting the reputation of the military medals, a legitimate, but not mandatory," Libby said. "False reputation is as a medal winners".

"The Government is seeking to create a new test to that Court precedents, from completely unmoored" Libby said.

"The Falsehoods is a valuable, for a myriad of reasons: indicate the fundamental aspect of truth, and of social interaction in the wheel finishing" Libby said. "More than there are harmless and, in General, considered to be beyond the control of the Government of the puffery prattle."

How much do you know about US-Constitution? Quiz.

Get daily or weekly updates on CSMonitor.com will be delivered to the Inbox. Sign up today.

View the original article here

Stolen Valor Act at Supreme Court: Is lying about being a hero a right?

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
When Xavier Alvarez stood up and introduced himself at a local water district meeting in July 2007, he had no idea he was about to commit a federal crime.

“I’m a retired Marine of 25 years,” he told the other board members in Pomona, Calif. “I retired in the year 2001. Back in 1987, I was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. I got wounded many times by the same guy. I’m still around.”

In most social situations, such statements might elicit interested nods, admiring smiles, and perhaps heart-felt thanks for his brave service to the nation.

But it turns out Mr. Alvarez never served a day in the US military, had never been wounded, and – most important – was never awarded the Medal of Honor.

How much do you know about the US Constitution? A quiz.

After his false claim was exposed, the Federal Bureau of Investigation showed up. Alvarez was soon indicted for allegedly violating the Stolen Valor Act of 2005, a law that makes it a federal crime to falsely claim to have been awarded a military medal.

His lawyer attacked the indictment as a violation of the First Amendment, arguing that Americans have a free-speech right to make false and outrageous claims about themselves without facing criminal prosecution from a government truth squad.

A federal judge upheld the indictment, but a US appeals court panel reversed.

On Wednesday, Alvarez’s case arrives at the US Supreme Court, where the justices are being asked to decide whether the Stolen Valor Act is an unconstitutional regulation of free speech or an acceptable effort by the government to punish an alleged liar.

The high court has never directly addressed the issue of lying about military awards, and it is not clear how the justices may decide it.

The Supreme Court has recognized a number of categories of speech that are unworthy of full First Amendment protection. They include obscenity, libel and defamation, incitement to imminent harm, and fraud. In each of those areas the underlying speech causes a concrete injury.

Critics of the Stolen Valor Act say it requires no underlying injury. Any false statement claiming receipt of a medal may be punished. These critics suggest the best remedy for such false statements is not criminal punishment but more speech, particularly truthful speech to expose the lie.

The Obama administration is urging the court to uphold the restriction as a valid regulation of a discrete kind of false speech that lacks significant constitutional value.

Alvarez counters that the court has never before declared that such false statements are unworthy of constitutional protection. His lawyer says the government’s position marks a radical departure from free speech principles that could lead to sanctions against those who exaggerate, use hyperbole, or engage in satire.

“For good or bad, right or wrong, everyone lies. Xavier Alvarez is no exception. He told a bunch of whoppers,” wrote Alvarez’s lawyer, Deputy Federal Public Defender Jonathan Libby, in his brief to the court.

“Exaggerated anecdotes, barroom braggadocio, and cocktail party puffery have always been thought to be beyond the realm of government reach and to pass without fear of criminal punishment,” Mr. Libby said.

The US Solicitor General’s Office disagrees, arguing that the Stolen Valor Act is aimed at achieving an important government objective and that it is narrowly focused to achieve that objective.

“The government employs military honors to convey a message to the public that the recipient has been endorsed by the government as part of a select group,” Solicitor General Donald Verrilli wrote in his brief to the court. “The aggregate effect of false claims undermines that purpose … by diluting the medals’ message of prestige and honor.”

The law seeks to punish only those who knowingly make a false claim of having been awarded a medal, Mr. Verrilli said. A person is unlikely to make such a claim out of confusion or by mistake, he said.

“Content-based restrictions on false factual statements are consistent with the First Amendment if they are supported by a strong government interest and provide adequate ‘breathing space’ for fully protected speech,” Verrilli’s brief said.

Alvarez’s lawyer, Mr. Libby, openly admits his client is a liar. But he says Alvarez was pilloried in his community as an “idiot” and a “jerk” after his false statements were exposed.

Libby says Americans lie all the time in social situations and that if his client loses his case, the government may soon be investigating the veracity of a broader range of facetious statements.

“Xavier Alvarez lied. He lied when he claimed to have played professional hockey for the Detroit Red Wings. He lied when he claimed to be married to a Mexican starlet whose appearance in public caused paparazzi to swoon. He lied when he claimed to be an engineer. He lied when he claimed to have rescued the American ambassador during the Iranian hostage crisis, and when he said that he was shot going back to grab the American flag,” Libby said in his brief.

What’s the harm, Libby asked in his brief. There is no evidence that anyone relied on Alvarez’s false claims about hockey or military heroics.

“The government’s interest in protecting the reputation of military medals is legitimate, but not compelling,” Libby said. “False claimants cannot tarnish the reputation of medal winners.”

“The government seeks to create a new test – completely unmoored from this court’s precedents,” Libby said.

“Falsehoods are valuable for innumerable reasons: in refining truth, in expressing personal autonomy, and in greasing the wheels of social interaction,” Libby said. “More than that, there is a realm of harmless prattle and puffery generally considered beyond government control.”

How much do you know about the US Constitution? A quiz.

Get daily or weekly updates from CSMonitor.com delivered to your inbox. Sign up today.

View the original article here