High court to hear 'bad advice' case
The Associated Press
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court stepped into a death penalty case Monday in which a defendant says his attorneys gave him bad advice by telling him to reject a plea deal that would have spared him a death sentence.

Maxwell Alton Hoffman was convicted in connection with a revenge killing in Idaho and sentenced to death in 1989. He appealed, saying that he should be allowed to take the deal prosecutors offered anyway.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed. The San Francisco-based appeals court said the state must either release Hoffman or again offer him a plea deal that he originally turned down -- allowing him to plead guilty in exchange for prosecutors no longer seeking the death penalty.

The state appealed to the Supreme Court. The justices said they would decide whether Hoffman is entitled to the plea deal, even though he was later convicted and sentenced in a fair trial.

Hoffman was one of three men charged with the murder of a woman who served as a police informant in a drug deal.

Hoffman slit Denise Williams' throat and another man stabbed her. Both men tried to bury her beneath rocks, eventually killing her with a blow from a rock.

The other two defendants avoided the death penalty. Hoffman, however, refused to plead guilty on the advice of his attorneys, even though prosecutors told him that if he refused the plea deal they would seek the death penalty.

Defense attorney William Wellman told Hoffman that he believed that a recent appellate court ruling in Arizona showed that Idaho's similar death penalty system was unconstitutional, and that it was only a matter of time before Idaho's system would be overturned in court.

But Idaho's system wasn't immediately overturned, and on June 9, 1989, Hoffman was sentenced to death.

The appeals court said Wellman made two mistakes that warranted overturning the death sentence. The appeals court said Wellman "based his advice on incomplete research, and second, Wellman recommended that his client risk much in exchange for very little."

That error, combined with Hoffman's compliant personality, meant that he was harmed by the attorney's recommendation, the court found.

Online: www.supremecourtus.gov

Why do we even appoint counsel anymore? Why not just go ahead and have the appellate court represent the defendant. They obviously are much wiser and have better hind vision.

I thought plea negotiations aren't admissible?

If the Supremes agree with the appellant will new plea recommendations only be conveyed verbally and informally so the offer becomes impossible to prove on appeal?

Plea negotiations aren't admissible in evidence at trial, but when the defendant wants to reconsider the plea offer after he is dissatisfied with the sentence he got at an otherwise fair trial, then he quite clearly (according to the opinion) can change his mind and call his lawyer ineffective for his bad advice. What a wonderful precedent for future trials - how on earth are we ever going to made a jury verdict stick now? Just say you are mad because your lawyer didn't get you the same or a better result at trial than if you had pled, and like magic, a reversal! But, bear in mind this came out of the 9th Circuit. They are known for this kind of weirdness. And further bear in mind that there is no requirement that the State even make an offer. I don't see how the Court can impose upon the State to reinstate the offer.

After the offer was made and refused...

Suppose the state developed a new strategy or theory during trial preparations.

Suppose new evidence was discovered that further implicated the appellant.

Suppose, in preparation for the trial, the state has plenty of time to closely examine the defense attorney's statements... and the state discovers the statements are based on old law, bravado, and blather!

Suppose that, in light of these developments, the state would have significantly increased or even totally withdrawn the offer before trial.

Should the defendant be entitled to the BEST offer or the last offer?