Supreme Court Hands Government their Asinine for Laughable Lafler Argument
A defendant was charged with Assault with Intent to Murder in a Michigan court. After receiving flawed legal advice from his attorney, he rejected a favorable plea offer and opted for trial. At trial, the defendant was convicted of all offenses and received a substantially longer sentence than contemplated in the plea offer. It was conceded that the defendant’s counsel was deficient in providing erroneous legal advice concerning the plea bargain, but the government contended that the defendant suffered no prejudice because the trial that lead to the convictions was conducted fairly. The Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in Lafler v. Cooper clearly and sensibly repudiated the government’s asinine argument that the occurrence of a fair trial somehow cured an error occasioned by defense counsel’s bad legal advice regarding a plea offer.
The Court held that in order to establish the basis for relief, the defendant must demonstrate that but for the deficient legal advice, the defendant would have accepted the plea offer, and that the outcome at trial was significantly more punitive than the terms contemplated in the plea offer. The Court reaffirmed the Strickland standard which has governed ineffective assistance of counsel cases for nearly thirty years, Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).
The Law Offices of Colón & McNelis, P.A. aggressively represents people throughout Central Florida in Personal Injury, Social Security/Disability, Immigration, Family, Criminal Defense, and Probate matters. Colón & McNelis, (863) 534-3777, www.colonandmcnelis.com.
In Cavazos v. Smith, No. 10-1115, October 31, 2011, the defendant was convicted for her role in the death of her 7-week old son and sentenced to fifteen years in prison. The prosecution’s three experts testified that the death of the child was the result of shaken baby syndrome (SBS). One defense expert testified that the child died from old brain trauma and another defense expert testified that the child’s death was due to sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).
In seeking habeas relief, the defendant argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove that the child died of SBS. The United States Supreme Court overturned the Ninth Federal Circuit Court of Appeals holding that the Ninth erred in granting the defendant’s habeas petition because the evidence presented at trial supported the jury’s decision since. The Court specifically cited expert opinion that the child died from severe shaking that caused a tear in the child’s brain stem. The federal appellate court improperly substituted its judgment for that of the jury on the question whether the prosecution’s expert or the defense’s expert more persuasively explained the cause of death.
The USSC held that t is the responsibility of a jury, not a court, to decide what conclusions should be drawn from evidence admitted at trial. A reviewing court may set aside the jury’s verdict on the ground of insufficient evidence only if no rational trier of fact could have agreed with the jury. Further, a federal court may not overturn a state court decision rejecting a sufficiency of the evidence challenge simply because the federal court disagrees with the state court. The federal court instead may do so only if the state court decision was objectively unreasonable. (Per curiam opinion, Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito, and Kagan)
The Law Offices of Colón & McNelis, P.A. aggressively represents people throughout Central Florida in Personal Injury, Social Security/Disability, Immigration, Family, Criminal Defense, and Probate matters. Colón & McNelis, (863) 534-3777, www.colonandmcnelis.com.