The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case in which it will decide how appellate courts are to evaluate claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in plea negotiations. The case, Arave v. Hoffman (07-110), is the latest effort by the Justices to decide whether mistakes made by a defense lawyer warrant overturning a criminal’s conviction or sentence. The appeal stems from a Idaho 1987 murder committed by Max Hoffman and two other men. Five weeks before his trial, prosecutors offered Hoffman a plea deal stating they would not seek the death penalty in exchange for his pleading guilty to first-degree murder. His court-appointed lawyer advised him that Idaho’s death penalty law was likely to be struck down as unconstitutional because it was nearly identical to an Arizona law that had recently been overturned by the state’s high court. Hoffman, who doubted that he was guilty of first-degree murder given his role in the crime, followed his attorney’s advice and rejected the state’s plea deal. In 1989, he was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death — a sentence that was reaffirmed when the Idaho Supreme Court upheld the state’s death penalty statute.

In 2006, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit overturned Hoffman’s death sentence because of the “deficient performance of his counsel.” In the opinion, the court found that Hoffman’s court-appointed attorney had never before handled a murder case and failed to conduct “reasonable research into the legal landscape” before advising his client to reject the guilty plea. Judge Harry Pregerson wrote that rejecting the plea bargain was a “risky proposition with a substantial downside.” He added that were it not for the “flawed advice” given to Hoffman by his defense attorney, “there is a more reasonable probability that he would have accepted the plea.”

The state is appealing the 9th Circuit’s decision that found Hoffman’s defense attorney had been ineffective in telling his client to turn down the plea based on incomplete research and that the defense lawyer was ineffective in insisting that the state prove its case, based on a belief that it could not prove a first-degree murder charge. The petition states that the 9th Circuit judges relied on “impermissible hindsight” in reaching its conclusion. The Justices will consider that challenge, as well as a question of their own, when it hears the case early next year. The question added by the Justices will determine what should be the remedy be for bad legal advice during plea negotiations if the defendant is later convicted and sentenced after a fair trial.

(New York Times, November 6, 2007; SCOTUS Blog, November 5, 2007; Los Angeles Times, November 6, 2007). See U.S. Supreme Court and Representation.