Plea bargains involve complex negotiations suffused with uncertainty, and defense counsel must make strategic choices in balancing opportunities - pleading to a lesser charge and obtaining a lesser sentence - and risks that the plea bargain might come before the prosecution finds its case is getting weaker, not stronger.

So says SCOTUS in the latest 9th Circuit embarrassment. Good case for our appellate brethren who read constant writs raising ineffective assistance of counsel following a plea bargain.

Details.

How many smackdowns does that make it so far this year telling the Ninth to butt out of state court business?

If a lawyer messed up that many cases in one year, the State Bar might suspend his license.

Part of me is still a little boggled that even the Ninth Circuit could call it ineffective assistance of counsel not to challenge a confession before accepting a plea bargain -- where (1) the challenge wasn't likely to be successful, (2) there was a wholly separate confession to two civilians, and (3) the plea was for the minimum for felony murder and dragging the case out could've meant an aggravated murder charge and possible death penalty! Proof that some judges are just completely disconnected with the realities of practice.

oh, and by the way, some criminals actually feel bad about their crimes and voluntarily plead guilty to accept responsibility. isn't that a shocking concept.

judges who believe that a lawyer who allows a defendant to accept responsibility is ineffective have a very shallow and, frankly, unethical, view of the role of counsel.

ever see the episode of south park with captain hindsight? more and more, ineffective assistance claims are decided through the eyes of captain hindsight.

[This message was edited by JB on 01-31-11 at .]