United States v. Wilson
2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18074, 2010 WL 811508, 719 F. Supp. 2d 1260 (2010)
Rule of Law:
The Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel applies to pre-indictment plea negotiations when the government has transitioned from investigator to adversary, and grossly inaccurate advice regarding sentencing and defense viability at any stage of plea bargaining can constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.
Facts:
- On August 13, 2001, law enforcement officers arrested Jay W. Wilson and, pursuant to a warrant, searched his home and car, finding 116 ecstasy pills, a pistol-grip shotgun, a scale, and drug packaging materials.
- On August 13, 2001, Wilson confessed his involvement in smuggling over 100,000 ecstasy pills and for approximately three weeks, assisted agents by seizing additional ecstasy, recording phone calls, and locating co-defendant Terrance Fischer.
- Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) Charles Stuckey informed Wilson that he would not discuss plea negotiations unless Wilson obtained an attorney, and subsequently facilitated the appointment of Frank de la Puente as counsel.
- On August 30, 2001, Wilson and De la Puente met with AUSA Stuckey, who told Wilson he was involved in a conspiracy, would be indicted, and offered a pre-indictment plea bargain of six years incarceration for continued cooperation, setting a one-day deadline without providing discovery.
- Wilson told De la Puente he had handled “huge amounts” of ecstasy for friends, confessed to handling 100,000 pills, and believed he had an immunity agreement with the agents.
- De la Puente drafted a counter-proposal offering Wilson's continued cooperation and information in exchange for full immunity, which AUSA Stuckey rejected.
- Without communicating the substance of AUSA Stuckey’s rejection to Wilson, De la Puente replied to the AUSA, stating that his immunity counter-proposal was a rejection of the six-year offer.
- On the eve of trial, AUSA Stuckey offered Wilson a plea bargain that would have resulted in 188 to 235 months imprisonment.
Procedural Posture:
- On September 7, 2001, the government filed a Superseding Indictment charging Jay W. Wilson with conspiracy to import, distribute, and possess ecstasy, along with eight counts of importation, distribution, and possession of ecstasy.
- Throughout pre-trial motion, trial, sentencing, and appeal, Wilson argued he was entitled to immunity based on his cooperation with federal agents, but these arguments failed.
- On August 27, 2002, a jury found Wilson guilty of multiple counts related to ecstasy.
- On February 19, 2003, Judge Helen Frye sentenced Wilson to 240 months imprisonment.
- The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Wilson's conviction and sentence (United States v. Wilson, 392 F.3d 1055 (9th Cir.2004)).
- Wilson timely filed a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel.
- On April 16, 2009, Judge Aneer Haggerty issued an Opinion and Order finding that trial counsel’s grossly inaccurate advice regarding Wilson’s potential sentence deprived him of constitutionally sufficient assistance of counsel during plea bargaining (United States v. Wilson, No. CR 01-263-HA, 2009 WL 1028088 (D.Or. Apr. 16, 2009)).
- Judge Haggerty ordered the parties to file supplemental briefs addressing: (1) whether Wilson would have accepted a plea offer if adequately informed; (2) what plea offers were made; and (3) the proper remedy.
- On December 18, 2009, the court held oral argument and heard testimony from Wilson and AUSA Stuckey, with Judge Redden presiding due to Judge Haggerty’s illness.
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 the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel apply to pre-indictment plea negotiations when the government acts as an adversary, and if so, did counsel's deficient advice during both pre- and post-indictment plea stages prejudice the defendant, warranting relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255?
Opinions:
Majority - Redden, Judge
Yes, the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel applies to the pre-indictment plea negotiation in this case, and counsel's grossly deficient performance both pre- and post-indictment prejudiced Wilson, entitling him to relief. The court concluded that the August 2001 pre-indictment plea negotiation was a "critical stage" of the criminal process. This determination was based on the adversarial nature of the confrontation, not merely the formal filing of an indictment. The AUSA had committed to prosecute by facilitating counsel appointment, informing Wilson he would be indicted, and offering a specific plea requiring surrender of his trial rights. The government's own insistence that Wilson obtain counsel, and the appointment of counsel under the Criminal Justice Act, underscored that Wilson was facing a prosecutorial adversary at this stage, thus invoking his right to effective counsel, as articulated in Patterson v. Illinois and United States v. Wade. The court found De la Puente's performance deficient under the first prong of Strickland v. Washington. De la Puente failed to advise Wilson on the strength of the government's case and the consequences of rejecting the six-year offer. He provided grossly inaccurate sentencing advice by relying on an outdated Sentencing Guidelines edition, miscalculating Wilson's exposure (41-51 months versus 20 years), and misapplying concepts like "safety valve" and acceptance of responsibility. Furthermore, he provided inaccurate advice regarding the likelihood of obtaining full immunity, failed to explain that law enforcement agents generally cannot bind the U.S. Attorney, and did not communicate AUSA Stuckey's unequivocal rejection of immunity to Wilson before the six-year offer expired. Post-indictment, he continued to encourage the pursuit of full immunity and never provided an accurate assessment of Wilson’s potential sentencing exposure. Wilson was prejudiced under the second prong of Strickland v. Washington. The court credited Wilson's testimony that he would have accepted the six-year plea offer had he received accurate advice regarding his true sentencing exposure (20 years) and the improbability of immunity. The substantial disparity between the six-year offer and the 20-year sentence Wilson faced, along with his age, supported his claim. Wilson’s earlier statements about not accepting six years were made without accurate knowledge of his dire situation. The court found De la Puente’s post-conviction statements and affidavits unreliable, as they were contradicted by other evidence and AUSA Stuckey's concerns about their accuracy. As a remedy, the court ordered specific performance of the government's initial six-year plea offer. Since Wilson had already served seven years, the court ordered his immediate release. This remedy was deemed necessary to put Wilson in the position he would have been in had the constitutional violation not occurred, especially since returning to plea negotiations was no longer viable given the passage of time and the government's completed prosecution of co-conspirators. The court also found a six-year sentence to be reasonable and consistent with sentencing goals, noting that Wilson’s co-conspirators served similar or reduced sentences.
Analysis:
This case significantly expands the scope of the Sixth Amendment's right to effective assistance of counsel to pre-indictment plea negotiations, shifting the focus from formal indictment to the adversarial nature of the government's conduct. It reinforces that the critical stage analysis is pragmatic and emphasizes the pervasive importance of competent legal advice at all stages of plea bargaining, which resolves most criminal cases. The ruling highlights that grossly inaccurate advice regarding potential sentencing exposure or the viability of defenses can constitute ineffective assistance, potentially leading to the extraordinary remedy of specific performance of a prior plea offer or even immediate release.
