Browder v. United States
398 F. Supp. 1042, 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16556 (1975)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant's sworn declarations on a guilty plea form and in open court, stating that no promises were made to induce the plea, create a strong presumption that the plea was voluntary and will generally overcome a later claim that the plea was induced by an unfulfilled promise from counsel. A sentence that falls within statutory limits is not considered cruel and unusual punishment or a violation of equal protection simply because other defendants convicted of similar crimes have received lighter sentences.
Facts:
- Edward Browder became involved with an organized crime syndicate and was indicted for pledging stolen securities.
- In an attempt to leave his criminal past, Browder moved to Ashland, Oregon, and assumed the alias James Chisum-Burns.
- Browder retained attorney John Flynn, a tax and property lawyer, initially for a real estate transaction.
- After his arrest on federal securities charges, Browder again hired Flynn, who was not a criminal lawyer, to represent him.
- Flynn allegedly told Browder that due to his connections, he could arrange a plea bargain for a maximum sentence of three years.
- Flynn also allegedly advised Browder to remain in jail pending sentencing to elicit sympathy from the judge.
- Browder's wife and son testified that Flynn also told them he had secured a "deal" for a three-year sentence.
- Following Flynn's alleged advice, Browder signed official plea forms for each charge, which contained a declaration stating that no person, including his lawyer, had made any promise of leniency to induce his guilty plea.
Procedural Posture:
- Edward Browder was charged by federal indictments in Oregon, Florida, and California, and by a federal information in Georgia.
- The out-of-district cases were transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon for a consolidated plea and sentencing.
- On November 4, 1970, Browder appeared before Judge Goodwin and entered pleas of guilty to all charges.
- On January 6, 1971, Judge Solomon sentenced Browder to multiple terms, with twenty-five years to run consecutively.
- Browder's post-sentencing motions for modification of his sentence were denied by the trial court.
- While incarcerated, Browder filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, challenging the validity of his conviction and sentence.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a guilty plea considered involuntary and unknowing when a defendant, who swore in court and on plea forms that no promises were made, later claims their attorney privately promised a specific, lighter sentence that was not honored?
Opinions:
Majority - Skopil, District Judge
No, the guilty plea is not considered involuntary. A defendant is bound by their sworn statements made in court and on plea petitions. The court found no evidence that a plea bargain was ever made with the government or the court. While the petitioner claimed his attorney, Mr. Flynn (now deceased), promised a three-year sentence, the petitioner's own signed plea forms and his in-court statements explicitly denied that any such promises were made. The court gave these formal declarations significant weight, finding the petitioner's credibility to be 'muddled by the footprints of his criminal history.' The court rejected the petitioner's claim that he was merely participating in a 'plea bargain theatre,' stating such a practice was not condoned in the district. Furthermore, the court held that the 25-year sentence, though severe, was within the statutory limits and therefore not subject to review as cruel and unusual punishment, despite the petitioner's study showing sentencing disparities in similar white-collar crime cases.
Analysis:
This decision underscores the principle of finality in guilty pleas and the critical importance of the in-court plea colloquy. It establishes that a defendant's sworn statements disavowing any promises will be held against them, making it exceptionally difficult to later challenge a plea based on alleged off-the-record assurances from counsel. The case highlights the evidentiary challenge of proving ineffective assistance of counsel when the attorney is deceased and the formal record contradicts the defendant's claims. Finally, the opinion's commentary on sentencing disparities for white-collar crime, while legally non-binding (dicta), reflects judicial concern over systemic leniency and reinforces the rule that sentences within statutory bounds are almost entirely insulated from appellate review on grounds of disproportionality.
