Eighteen years have passed since an Idaho murder defendant took his lawyer's advice and rejected the state's offer of a guilty plea that would have resulted in a life sentence.
The defendant, Maxwell Hoffman, went to trial instead, and was sentenced to death for participating in the murder of a government informer.
A federal appeals court eventually ruled that the lawyer's advice reflected such bad judgment that it did not meet the guarantee of effective assistance of counsel in the Sixth Amendment. On Monday, the US Supreme Court announced that it would use the case to decide how appellate courts are to evaluate claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in plea negotiations.
To that question, posed by Idaho's attorney general in the state's appeal, the justices added a question of their own: What should the remedy be for bad legal advice during plea negotiations if the defendant is later convicted and sentenced after a fair trial?
In its opinion, issued in July of last year, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals granted Hoffman's petition for a writ of habeas corpus and gave Idaho the choice of offering him the same plea agreement that he turned down in 1989 or releasing him from confinement.
The Idaho attorney general, Lawrence Wasden, is arguing in the appeal that the 9th Circuit incorrectly concluded that Hoffman's legal representation was unconstitutionally deficient. A defendant should have to show not just bad judgment but "gross error" by the defense lawyer, the state's brief maintains, explaining that such a high standard is needed to keep appellate courts from second-guessing a defense strategy with the benefit of hindsight.
GROSS ERROR
Although a 1970 Supreme Court decision, McMann vs. Richardson, referred to a "gross error" standard, the court has not elaborated on that requirement in the intervening decades. Hoffman's current lawyers are arguing that the court effectively rejected that standard in 1984, when it decided the case that has provided the modern framework for evaluating claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.
The 1984 case, Strickland vs. Washington, requires defendants to prove both "cause" -- a quality of legal representation that is objectively deficient -- and "pre-judice," proof of harm from the lawyer's behavior. In 2003, the court applied the Strickland case to overturn the sentence of a man on Maryland's death row on the grounds that the defense lawyer had failed to investigate and present to the jury facts of his client's personal history that could have led jurors to spare his life.
In the new case, Arave vs. Hoffman, the 9th Circuit concluded that Hoffman had met both prongs of the Strickland test. The court found that Hoffman's court-appointed lawyer, William Wellman, who had never before handled a murder case, failed to conduct "reasonable research into the legal landscape" before advising his client to reject the guilty plea. The appeals court also found a "reasonable probability that the outcome of the proceedings would have been different had counsel acted competently."
It was the defense lawyer's misfortune to receive the assignment in Hoffman's case at a moment when death-penalty law was in a particularly high state of flux. Just six weeks before Idaho offered the plea bargain to Hoffman, the 9th Circuit had invalidated Arizona's death penalty law on the ground that it gave too much fact-finding power to the judge. Since Idaho's death penalty law was indistinguishable, and Idaho is also in the 9th Circuit, Wellman reasoned that even if his client received a death sentence, it would be overturned on appeal.
UNAWARE
However, Wellman was unaware that four days before the plea bargain was offered, the Arizona Supreme Court, in a separate case, had rejected the 9th Circuit's reasoning and had upheld the Arizona death penalty statute. This decision injected a good deal of ambiguity and made it likely that the US Supreme Court would resolve the conflict. In fact, the next year, the justices upheld the Arizona law.
"We do not fault Wellman for failing to predict the outcome of these divergent opinions," Judge Harry Pregerson said in the 9th Circuit's opinion in Hoffman's case. "We do not expect counsel to be prescient about the direction the law will take."
Nonetheless, the appeals court concluded, the lawyer "vastly underestimated" the chance that his client would be sentenced to death if he rejected the plea bargain.
Idaho is arguing in its appeal that the 9th Circuit relied on "impermissible hindsight" in reaching this conclusion. "Counsel are not required to guess what may happen regarding future court decisions," Wasden, the state attorney general, told the justices, adding that, given the "unsettled" state of the law, "Wellman's advice was not objectively unreasonable."
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath