Lafler v. Cooper

Supreme Court of the United States
566 U.S. (2012)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel extends to the plea-bargaining process, and a defendant can demonstrate prejudice under Strickland v. Washington if counsel's deficient performance leads to the rejection of a favorable plea offer, even if the defendant subsequently receives a fair trial.

Facts:

Anthony Cooper pointed a gun at Kali Mundy's head and fired, but missed.
As Mundy fled, Cooper chased her and shot her multiple times in the buttock, hip, and abdomen.
Mundy survived the assault.
Michigan prosecutors charged Cooper with several offenses, including assault with intent to murder.
The prosecution twice offered Cooper a plea agreement to dismiss some charges and recommend a sentence of 51 to 85 months.
Cooper's attorney advised him to reject the plea offers, incorrectly asserting that the prosecution could not prove intent to murder because the victim was shot below the waist.
Relying on this deficient advice, Cooper rejected both offers.
Following a jury trial, Cooper was convicted on all counts and received a mandatory minimum sentence of 185 months.

Procedural Posture:

Anthony Cooper was convicted by a jury in a Michigan state trial court and sentenced to a mandatory minimum of 185 to 360 months' imprisonment.
The state trial court held a hearing and rejected Cooper's claim that his counsel was ineffective for advising him to reject the plea.
Cooper appealed to the Michigan Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court), which affirmed the conviction, finding Cooper's rejection of the plea was knowing and intelligent.
The Michigan Supreme Court (highest state court) denied Cooper's application for leave to appeal.
Cooper filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (federal trial court).
The District Court granted a conditional writ of habeas corpus, concluding the state court's decision was an unreasonable application of established federal law.
The State of Michigan, represented by Warden Blaine Lafler, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (federal intermediate appellate court).
The Sixth Circuit affirmed the District Court's grant of habeas relief.
The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Sixth Circuit's decision.

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 criminal defendant suffer a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel when counsel's deficient advice leads to the rejection of a favorable plea offer, and the defendant is later convicted and sentenced to a harsher term after a fair trial?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Kennedy

Yes, a criminal defendant suffers a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel in these circumstances. The right to effective counsel is a critical component of the plea-bargaining process, which resolves the vast majority of criminal cases. The Court rejected the argument that a subsequent fair trial 'cures' the prejudice from deficient pre-trial counsel, reasoning that the trial itself, by resulting in a much harsher sentence, is the source of the injury. To establish prejudice, a defendant must show a reasonable probability that: (1) they would have accepted the plea offer; (2) the prosecution would not have withdrawn it; and (3) the court would have accepted its terms, leading to a less severe sentence than was actually imposed. The remedy is not necessarily specific performance, but to require the state to reoffer the plea, allowing the trial court discretion to decide whether to vacate the conviction and accept the plea.

Dissenting - Justice Scalia

No, there is no Sixth Amendment violation when a defendant receives a full and fair trial. The purpose of the right to effective counsel is to ensure a fair trial and a reliable result, which Cooper received. The Constitution does not grant a right to a plea bargain; therefore, counsel's error in advising on a plea does not deprive the defendant of any substantive or procedural right. By constitutionalizing the plea-bargaining process, the Court is creating a new field of law that moves away from the core purpose of the Sixth Amendment. Furthermore, the remedy—allowing a trial judge discretion to do nothing—is absurd for what the majority deems a constitutional violation.

Dissenting - Justice Alito

No, the Court misapplies ineffective-assistance-of-counsel precedent. Because the respondent received a constitutionally fair trial, there is no basis for concluding he suffered legal prejudice. The weakness of the majority's position is shown by its opaque and illogical remedy. If a constitutional right was truly violated, the only logical remedy would be to grant the defendant the benefit of the lost bargain. The majority's discretionary remedy highlights the unsoundness of its core holding that a constitutional violation occurred.

Analysis:

This landmark decision, along with its companion case Missouri v. Frye, significantly broadened the application of the Sixth Amendment's right to effective assistance of counsel by extending it robustly into the plea-bargaining stage. The Court explicitly rejected the 'fair trial cures all' argument, recognizing that since 94-97% of convictions result from guilty pleas, the pre-trial phase is often the most critical part of a criminal case. This ruling creates a new framework for post-conviction relief, allowing defendants to challenge convictions based on missed plea opportunities due to attorney error, fundamentally changing the landscape of criminal defense and post-conviction litigation.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Lafler v. Cooper (2012)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"