Lafler v. Cooper's Remedy: A Weak Response to a Constitutional Violation
![handle is hein.journals/ndalro92 and id is 172 raw text is:
LAFLER V COOPER'S REMEDY: A WEAK RESPONSE TO
A CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION
Matthew T Ciulla*
INTRODUCTION
The Sixth Amendment's Counsel Clause preserves an accused's right
to counsel. The mere fact, however, that a person who happens to be a
lawyer is present at trial alongside the accused . . . is not enough to satisfy
the constitutional command.2 Rather, defendants have a right to the
effective assistance of counsel. This right is protected by Strickland v.
Washington's two-prong ineffective assistance of counsel test.3
The United States Supreme Court recognizes that an accused enjoys
this right before accepting a plea deal.4 Only recently, however, has the
Supreme Court addressed the issue of effective assistance of counsel when
an accused rejects (or, at least, does not accept) a plea deal, in the sister
decisions of Lafler v. Cooper' and Missouri v. Frye.6 While Frye
addressed the situation in which defense counsel failed to inform the
defendant of plea offers before they lapsed, the Court in Lafler turned its
focus to counsel deficiently advising the defendant to reject a favorable
plea deal.
In Lafler, defendant Anthony Cooper's attorney informed him of a
favorable plea offer, but deficiently advised him to reject it.9 Cooper
pled not guilty, and received a full and fair trial before a jury.0 Cooper
* Juris Doctor, Notre Dame Law School, 2017; Bachelor of Science, Vanderbilt
University, 2014. I would like to thank Professor Marah Stith McLeod for her guidance and
feedback on this Essay.
1 U.S. CONST. amend. VI.
2 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 685 (1984).
3 See id at 687-88 (holding that defendant making an ineffective assistance of
counsel claim must first show that counsel's representation fell below an objective standard
of reasonableness); id. at 694-95 (holding that defendant must also meet prejudice prong,
showing that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors,
the result of the proceeding would have been different).
4 See, e.g., McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759, 771 (1970) (stating that
defendants pleading guilty are still entitled to the effective assistance of competent
counsel); id. at 771 n. 14 (collecting cases); see also Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 366
(2010) (applying Strickland test to guilty pleas); Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 57 (1985)
([T]he same [Strickland] two-part standard seems to us applicable to ineffective-assistance
claims arising out of the plea process.).
5 132 S. Ct. 1376 (2012).
6 132 S. Ct. 1399 (2012).
7 See id. at 1404-05.
8 See Lafler, 132 S. Ct. at 1383-84.
9 Id. at 1383.
10 Id.
172](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/ndalro92&div=12&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Lafler v. Cooper's Remedy: A Weak Response to a Constitutional Violation
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most