Arave v. Hoffman

From ScotusWiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Authorship:

1 Briefs and Documents
- 1.1 Cert. Stage
2 Pre-Argument Articles
- 2.1 Grant write-up
- 2.2 Argument Preview
3 Oral Argument Recap
4 Opinion Analysis
5 Links and further information
- 5.1 Media Coverage

[edit] Briefs and Documents

Docket: 07-110

[edit] Cert. Stage

[edit] Pre-Argument Articles

[edit] Grant write-up

The following is modified from a post by Lyle Denniston that originally appeared on SCOTUSblog.

The Supreme Court agreed to spell out the remedy that may be available for ineffective defense lawyer’s efforts during plea bargaining, if the individual was later convicted at a fair trial. The Court added that question to two that were raised in a death penalty case, Arave v. Hoffman (07-110). The other issues involved the Ninth Circuit Court’s finding that the lawyer’s advice in reaction to a plea offer was flawed.

In the case, prosecutors in Idaho offered Maxwell Hoffman a recommendation for a life sentence if he would plead guilty to first-degree murder. Hoffman’s lawyer, however, urged him to reject the offer, apparently in the belief that, if a death sentence were imposed, it would be reversed on appeal. The advice was based on what turned out to be a faulty interpretation of death sentencing law. The Ninth Circuit ruled that the lawyer had been ineffective in telling his client to turn down the plea, finding that it was based on incomplete research and because it made his client run a serious risk in return for little benefit. The Circuit Court also said the defense lawyer was ineffective in insisting that the state prove its case, based on a belief that the state could not prove a first-degree murder charge.

The state’s appeal challenged both facets of the Circuit Court ruling. The Supreme Court granted review of those issues, then added the following question: “What, if any, remedy should be provided for ineffective assistance of counsel during plea bargain negotiations if the defendant was later convicted and sentenced pursuant to a fair trial?”

Hoffman was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. The Ninth Circuit, after finding that the defense was flawed, overturned the conviction and the death sentence, ordering the state as a remedy either to offer him virtually the same plea deal — plead guilty and avoid the death penalty — or release him. It is clear that, if the Supreme Court disagrees with the Ninth Circuit about the defense counsel’s performance, it would not reach the issue of remedy that it added for review. (Seven judges on the Ninth Circuit Court dissented when en banc review was denied.)