SCOTUS Case - Missouri v. Frye (10/31/11)
A link to the court case on the SCOTUSblog : http://bit.ly/ste9dt
Transcript : http://bit.ly/rJOMCF
6th Amendment : http://bit.ly/9L4u
Galin Frye's situation has brought up the question of (from SCOTUSblog):
"Can a criminal defendant who was convicted after a jury trial later argue that his lawyer was inadequate because he failed to tell him that prosecutors had offered a deal to plead guilty in exchange for a lighter sentence? And, if so, what should courts do to correct the lawyer's error?"
Galin Frye was caught felony driving with a revoked license. He entered a plea of guilty and recieved a sentencing of 3 years in prison. However, his lawyer failed to tell him that the prosecutor offered a plea offer to a a misdemeanor charge instead, in which he'd only receive 90 days in prison. The lawyer exemplified "ineffective assistance of counsel". This situation brings up the issue of "fundamental fairness and reliability of criminal process". This issue states that a client's attorney provide him with ALL of the facts, especially a fact as detrimental as this one.
The only piece of the Constitution that is brought up throughout the case was the Sixth Amendement. Which reads:
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense."
This was brought up because of the last line, "and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense". Frye and his team of lawyers are arguing that his counsel gave ineffective assistance. Frye and his team are looking for some kind of correction to the lawyer's error. The last moment of dialogue of the argument was, "For this and other reasons stated in our briefing, the Missouri versus Court of Appeals should be reversed."
Transcript : http://bit.ly/rJOMCF
6th Amendment : http://bit.ly/9L4u
Galin Frye's situation has brought up the question of (from SCOTUSblog):
"Can a criminal defendant who was convicted after a jury trial later argue that his lawyer was inadequate because he failed to tell him that prosecutors had offered a deal to plead guilty in exchange for a lighter sentence? And, if so, what should courts do to correct the lawyer's error?"
Galin Frye was caught felony driving with a revoked license. He entered a plea of guilty and recieved a sentencing of 3 years in prison. However, his lawyer failed to tell him that the prosecutor offered a plea offer to a a misdemeanor charge instead, in which he'd only receive 90 days in prison. The lawyer exemplified "ineffective assistance of counsel". This situation brings up the issue of "fundamental fairness and reliability of criminal process". This issue states that a client's attorney provide him with ALL of the facts, especially a fact as detrimental as this one.
The only piece of the Constitution that is brought up throughout the case was the Sixth Amendement. Which reads:
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense."
This was brought up because of the last line, "and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense". Frye and his team of lawyers are arguing that his counsel gave ineffective assistance. Frye and his team are looking for some kind of correction to the lawyer's error. The last moment of dialogue of the argument was, "For this and other reasons stated in our briefing, the Missouri versus Court of Appeals should be reversed."
Some of the Judges seemed to agree that the lawyer had made a huge error. But, they argued that even if Frye had taken the offer made by the prosecutors the judge would've shot it down anyways. Time will tell, if this case will get reversed. I do not believe it will, though.
Comments
No comments have been posted yet.
Log in to post a comment.