Brady v. United States
397 U.S. 742 (1970)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A guilty plea is not compelled and invalid under the Fifth Amendment simply because it was motivated by the defendant's desire to avoid a possible death penalty. A plea is constitutional if it is entered voluntarily and intelligently, representing a willing choice among the actual alternatives available to the defendant.
Facts:
- Robert Brady was charged with kidnaping under the Federal Kidnaping Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1201(a).
- The statute stipulated that the death penalty could be imposed only if recommended by a jury.
- The indictment charged that the victim had not been liberated unharmed, thus exposing Brady to a possible death sentence.
- Brady, represented by competent counsel, initially pleaded not guilty.
- Brady learned that his co-defendant had confessed and would be available to testify against him at trial.
- After learning of his co-defendant's cooperation with authorities, Brady changed his plea to guilty.
- Brady was subsequently sentenced to 50 years' imprisonment, which was later reduced to 30 years.
Procedural Posture:
- Robert Brady was indicted for kidnaping in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico and entered a plea of guilty.
- In 1967, Brady filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the same District Court, seeking to have his sentence vacated on the grounds that his guilty plea was involuntary.
- The District Court held an evidentiary hearing and denied Brady's motion, finding that the plea was voluntarily and knowingly made.
- Brady, as appellant, appealed the denial to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's decision, upholding the finding that the plea was voluntary.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a guilty plea become involuntary under the Fifth Amendment if it is motivated by a desire to avoid a potential death sentence authorized by a statute that was later held to have an unconstitutional death penalty provision?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice White
No, a guilty plea does not become involuntary under the Fifth Amendment simply because it was motivated by a fear of the death penalty. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a guilty plea, if knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made with the advice of competent counsel, is not coerced merely because it was entered to avoid the possibility of a higher penalty. The Court distinguished this case from United States v. Jackson, explaining that Jackson only invalidated the death penalty provision of the Federal Kidnaping Act, not the entire statute, and did not hold that all guilty pleas entered under the Act were inherently coercive. The Court reasoned that plea bargaining, where a defendant pleads guilty in exchange for a lesser penalty, is an essential and constitutional component of the criminal justice system. A defendant's choice to plead guilty to limit their maximum sentence exposure is a calculated decision, not an involuntary act, especially when advised by competent counsel. Furthermore, a plea made voluntarily and intelligently based on the law as it existed at the time does not become invalid due to subsequent judicial decisions that change the legal landscape.
Analysis:
This landmark decision solidified the constitutional foundation of plea bargaining in the United States. By ruling that a defendant's motivation to avoid a harsher penalty does not, by itself, render a guilty plea involuntary, the Court validated a practice critical to the efficiency of the criminal justice system. The case establishes that the voluntariness of a plea is determined by the totality of the circumstances at the time it is made, focusing on whether the defendant had a real choice and was not subject to threats or misrepresentation. This ruling provides finality to convictions based on guilty pleas, even when subsequent legal developments might have changed the defendant's strategic calculations.
