Justice Kagan’s Voting Position and Reasoning
Lee Vs United States
Justice Elena Keagan will vote for the defendant because in her opinion, in cases where a defendant does not receive adequate representation, courts look at what would have happened during trial. In this case, the focus is a is a bit different because the question should focus on what may have happened on plea bargaining. In her view, the outcome in trial is different from the outcome in plea bargaining (Cushman, 2012). Therefore, if one was to be asked to take a plea of guilt which would ultimately result to deportation, and go to trial; she believes that one would go for the later.
The United States rejected Lee’s arguments asserting that he did not prove that rejecting of pleas would have resulted to him not being deported. The government further argues that Lee ought to show that he had a better option than the plea offer, resulting into continued stay in the United States. Elena egan concludes by stating that if anyone gave her the chance she would go for the chance.
Justice Samuel Alito is of the opinion that Lee’s pleadings were of standards which are not manageable. In his opinion a rational defendant going to trial will depend on whether the accused valued his ability to stay in the United States compared to going to jail. In Lee’s case, he did not even value his stay in the United states due to his distribution of ecstasy, while knowing the possible consequences if he got caught. He asserts that Lee’s case is sympathetic, but most cases present a similar call. According to him, it is even worse when the accused faces a longer conviction. He also questions how a decision can be made when a person has more ties to the country in which a person is being deported from. Kennedy responds to this suggesting that Judges know what may happen if such a case gets to trial. In this scenario, Lee wants an assessment of the mindset of the defendant when the plea bargaining exercise is being carried out.
This is because Ruth shares Mr Kagan’s sentiments and sympathies with Lee. However it’s hard for Lee to find five justices who sympathies with hm.
Justice Kennedy will vote for the defendant because we see him sympathizing with Lee. He argues that the judge who was handling Lees’ case at the district would have done much to ensure that Lee was at an informed point; in regards to the consequences of pleading guilty and immigration. Kennedy points out to the District court script where the judge warns Lee before taking a plea that pleading guilty would lead to his deportation because he is not a Citizen of the United States. Therefore, Kennedy suggests that defendants like Lee need to adopt a middle ground showing a probability of success when they went to trial as opposed to pleading guilty.
Justice John Roberts shares Justice Kennedy’s Skeptism, He tells Lee’s representative that he does not see how this case can be distinguished from any future case. If the court were to rule on Lee’s behalf, Roberts afraid that it would open flood gates for all prisoners who were wrongly advised to appeal. According to him, all inmates who pleaded guilty can claim that they would have gone to trial if they received proper advice, no matter what the odds might have been. Roberts argues that sometimes, defendants can choose longer sentences depending on circumstances surrounding their deportation, i.e being close to family or better prison facilities.
Justice Samuel’s Voting Position and Reasoning
Sonia will vote for the defendant because her arguments are in favor of Lee’s
In her opinion on what trial courts would do, she says that there should be a set of degrees regarding what is rational, and there should be standards, also the line needs to be cut somewhere. Despite the difficulties faced by the lower courts in making decisions, these decisions are made every day. Sonia also asserts that Lee was proposing a manageable standard. She observes that there are not many cases regarding improper counsel representation at the plea-bargaining stage and that most cases are not admitted by courts as case law.
In Lee’s appeal on the sixth circuit court his claim could not be sustained because he failed to prove prejudice. He could not prove prejudice consistent with Pilla v.United States. The case on Lee Vs United states seeks to understand whether a person can retract their plea. The defendant in this case after being wrongly advice y his lawyer was on his way to his home country after several year of living in the United States. The Sixth Circuit Court and the appellate court both argue that the defendant cannot retract his plea. The Supreme Court precedence demands that Lee shows he was prejudiced and that he was compromised. Just as the plea summoned for deportation, the evidence against the defendant was overwhelming that it would have had the same results just like a guilty plea.
The lawyer to the defendant was asking the Justices to adopt an objective conception in regards to rationality. He uses the case of Hill vs Lockard it pleading with the justices to proceed with the hearing. In this case, the judges were asking whether the defendant will in particular set of circumstance, without undue influence plea to a particular outcome. According to the defendant’s lawyer, no lawyer who has lived in the United States for decades, having no relatives or friends from where they originate from agree to plead guilty, and be deported; even if it is saving a few months in prison. Alito’s concerns are aired on these scenario where such a test in his opinion cannot be comprehended. He says it depends on the value one places on things. It is like choosing between swimming in a shark tank or climbing Mount Everest without oxygen. He would not opt for either, but he wonders why people would do such things. Mr. Busrch in response, gives the concept of prevention, where a backstop is put in place so that it prevents people from doing certain things (Shullz, 2015).
The federal appeal courts make reviews based on Strickland Vs Washington on deficient counsel. If an advocate is unconstitutionally ineffective, this case has a two part test which is used in determining the counsel’s ineffectiveness. The questions which should be asked are if the counsel was ineffective and whether their performance prejudiced the client. Therefore, the defendant needs to show prejudice so that he may prevail. Lee needed to prove if it were not for the counsel’s errors he would not have pleaded guilty and not insisted to go to trial. Lee needed to convince the court that rejecting the plea bargain was rational under the circumstances as in Pilla v United States. The District court convicted the defendant on grounds of federal offences. The court of appeal affirmed this decision.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg‘s Voting Position and Reasoning
On appeal, Lee considers whether the evidence against him is a dispositive factor, while weighing whether the Strickland relief is available. The strong evidence put forth by the government could fall apart during trial, according to Lee. He relies on the probability test and argues for the possibility that the government may not meet the beyond reasonable doubt thresh hold. Lee also argues that he should be allowed to go to trial even if a slight chance of him not getting deported exists. He bases his argument on Preemo vs More; whereby the court needs to weigh available evidence, legal options and other factors which affect the process of talking plea.
Eric Feiglin asserts that Mr. Lee ought to loose. According to him, nothing is consistent with the constitution in regards to what a counsel would have done to prevent a person from pleading guilty. In his opinion, Lee did not have even a weak defense. The only chance he had is perhaps a jury nullification. Eruic believes that Lee would only get a longer prison term if he went to trial.
Kegan responding to Eric’s opinion, says that the defendant presents an inquiry which is uncomfortable. She further directs Feiglin that the correct question to ask in the scenario is whether Lee would gain anything if he goes to trial.
Relevant cases which will determine the Defendants outcome include, Turner v. United States and Overton v. United States. In these cases, a group of men were convicted for a crime based on testimonies by eyewitnesses. The attorneys of the defense later obtained evidence suggesting that someone else committed the crime. The lower courts rejected the men’s pleading to vacate the convictions. The Supreme Court considered the cli=aim, noting that prosecutors did not comply with the obligations under Brady v. Maryland, thus accepted to review straightforward questions, and set the convictions aside. In Lee vs The United States, the court explores a familiar topic, as to whether Lee’s constitutional rights have been infringed. The attorney provided Lee with insufficient advice, thus he fulfils the first test. Therefore, for Lee’s conviction to be quashed, he needs to show that this constitutional rights were infringed and lead to his conviction as in the cases above.
To sum up, Mr. Lee needs five justices to be in his side in order to stay in America. Bader Ginsburg and Sonia seem to share the sentiments presented by Kegan. They feel sympathy for Lee. However, it is hard to find other two justices who will side with Lee, and give him permission to retract the plea which is eight year old (). John Roberts and Stephen Breyer, directed questions to both sides and Kennedy and Alito seem to take the Defendants side. From the opinion of the Justices, Lee may end up with one ticket back to his country with many goodbyes to tell.
References:
Bollinger, L. C. (1986). The tolerant society: Freedom of speech and extremist speech in America. New York: Oxford University Press; Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Carter, G. L. (2002). Guns in American society: An encyclopedia of history, politics, culture, and the law. Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC-CLIO, Inc. Bottom of Form
Cushman, C. (2012). The Supreme Court justices: Illustrated biographies, 1789-2012. Washington, D.C: CQ.
Djupe, P. A., & Olson, L. R. (2003). Encyclopedia of American religion and politics. New York, NY: Facts On File.
Epstein, L., & Walker, T. G. (1995). Constitutional Law for a Changing America: Rights. Liberties, and Justice, 680.
Greenwood, C. (1996). International Humanitarian Law and the Tadic Case. Eur. J. Int’l L., 7, 265.
NASKAR, L. C. L. (2011). Writ Petition (Criminal) 110 of 2000.
Palmer Jr, L. J. (2000). Encyclopedia of capital punishment in the United States. McFarland.
Russo, C. J. (2008). Encyclopedia of education law. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications.Bottom of Form
Stacy, L. (2002). Mexico and the United States. New York: Marshall Cavendish.
Subin, H. I. (1987). The Criminal Lawyer’s Different Mission: Reflections on the Right to Present a False Case. Geo. J. Legal Ethics, 1, 125.
Teck, C. H. (2015). The Legacy of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
