« Florida Supreme Court decides unanimously that Miller applies retroactively to all mandatory juve LWOP sentences | Main | Sentencing judgment days this week in federal court for two pols behaving very badly »
March 19, 2015
"Beyond the Right to Counsel: Increasing Notice of Collateral Consequences"
The title of this post is the title of this new paper available via SSRN authored by Brian M. Murray. Here is the abstract:
In recent years, the increased collateral consequences of a criminal conviction have led to crippling effects on individuals and communities. In response to the problem of defendants pleading guilty without awareness of these indirect, albeit severe penalties, many commentators have called for an expansion of the right to counsel. These efforts, which are a step in the right direction, remain practically difficult to institute given current Supreme Court jurisprudence, legislative will, and resource deficiencies in the system. Expansion of the right to counsel also would keep the hefty burden of navigating the labyrinth of collateral consequences almost entirely on the defendant and defense attorneys, who are often overwhelmed and unable to account for the myriad consequences in a particular jurisdiction.
This Article conceptualizes the issue of collateral consequences as a systemic literacy problem that requires an institutional solution that extends beyond the duties of defense counsel. It argues that because the criminal justice system is primarily one of pleas rather than trials, alternative solutions that involve active participation by other actors involved in the plea process are necessary. Judicial participation in the notice process, informed by the guarantees of the Fifth Amendment, should be from beginning to end, starting with arraignment and ending with the guilty plea colloquy presented to the court. This solution comports with the spirit of Missouri v. Frye and Padilla v. Kentucky, which recognize the significance of notice as essential to combating the root of the problem, albeit in the Sixth Amendment context. Likewise, prosecutors must become more mindful of the how convictions affect individuals and should contribute to improving awareness through disclosure obligations at the time of a plea offer. These efforts will cumulatively heighten legal literacy over time – amongst all players within the system – and allow for an equitable distribution of burdens when addressing this issue.
March 19, 2015 at 09:32 PM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451574769e201bb080af174970d
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "Beyond the Right to Counsel: Increasing Notice of Collateral Consequences":
Comments
It is inadequate representation to fail to discuss collateral consequences in a plea bargain discussion with the messenger of the prosecutor, the defense lawyer.
Isn't it obvious that inadequate representation is also legal malpractice per se. That is, an appellate judge has determined a failure to comply with professionals standards of due care, and called the representation inadequate. Shouldn't a claim now be restricted to the dollar amount of the damages?
If there is a legal difference between malpractice and inadequacy, I would appreciate a brief explanation. The appellate decision has bypassed the trial within a trial, the litigation privilege, the proof of the ability to collect, since the adverse party is the government, and has arrived at the last and only issue, the amount of the damages. I suggest that the person's salary times the years sentenced times 3 be a simple fourth grade arithmetic formula to calculate damages. What is missing?
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Mar 20, 2015 6:54:49 AM