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."
As Taiwan’s domestic political crisis deepens, the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) have proposed gutting the country’s national spending, with steep cuts to the critical foreign and defense ministries. While the blue-white coalition alleges that it is merely responding to voters’ concerns about corruption and mismanagement, of which there certainly has been plenty under Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and KMT-led governments, the rationales for their proposed spending cuts lay bare the incoherent foreign policy of the KMT-led coalition. Introduced on the eve of US President Donald Trump’s inauguration, the KMT’s proposed budget is a terrible opening
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
“I compare the Communist Party to my mother,” sings a student at a boarding school in a Tibetan region of China’s Qinghai province. “If faith has a color,” others at a different school sing, “it would surely be Chinese red.” In a major story for the New York Times this month, Chris Buckley wrote about the forced placement of hundreds of thousands of Tibetan children in boarding schools, where many suffer physical and psychological abuse. Separating these children from their families, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) aims to substitute itself for their parents and for their religion. Buckley’s reporting is
Last week, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), together holding more than half of the legislative seats, cut about NT$94 billion (US$2.85 billion) from the yearly budget. The cuts include 60 percent of the government’s advertising budget, 10 percent of administrative expenses, 3 percent of the military budget, and 60 percent of the international travel, overseas education and training allowances. In addition, the two parties have proposed freezing the budgets of many ministries and departments, including NT$1.8 billion from the Ministry of National Defense’s Indigenous Defense Submarine program — 90 percent of the program’s proposed
RSS