The Supreme Court’s decisions in Missouri v. Frye and Lafler v. Cooper, and the upcoming appeal in Burt v. Titlow1, have put plea bargaining front and center on the national stage.2 As a result, they have divided practitioners and scholars into two camps: (1) those who consider the rulings to be a new statement in the law of plea bargaining and right to effective assistance of counsel; and (2) those who believe they are only a restatement of established principles.3 In any event, these cases have generated interest in the centrality and regulation of plea bargaining, the ethics and effectiveness of defense counsel as negotiator, the oversight of prosecutors regarding charging decisions, sentence recommendations and pre-trial discovery, and the scope of federal habeas corpus review and remedies.
This article collects high court opinions, scholarship and commentary regarding the themes addressed by the Supreme Court in Lafler and Frye as well as their implications for the administration of criminal justice.4
See first link below for entire article:
Related articles
- New on LLRX.com – Negotiating Justice: The New Constitutional Spectrum of Plea Bargaining (bespacific.com)
- “Effective Plea Bargaining Counsel” (sentencing.typepad.com)
- Roberts on Effective Plea Bargaining Counsel (lawprofessors.typepad.com)
- Bowers on Effective Assistance of Plea-Bargaining Counsel(lsolum.typepad.com)
- King of Plea Bargains that Waive Ineffectiveness Claims(lawprofessors.typepad.com)
- “Peeking Behind the Plea Bargaining Process” (sentencing.typepad.com)
- A potent response to a prosecutor’s perspective on Lafler, Frye and the future of plea bargaining (sentencing.typepad.com)
lennyesq 