Class v. United States (16-424)

argument 16-424

Class v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States 59 min 6 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 5 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the central legal issue about waiving constitutional challenges after a guilty plea?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We'll hear an argument next in case sixteen four hundred twenty four, class versus United States. Ms. Amundsen?

Unknown 0:08

Mr Chief Justice, and may it please the court. A defendant comes to the plea bargaining table with certain rights in hand, including the statutory right to appeal a conviction. The government concedes that in his written plea agreement, petitioner did not waive his right to appeal his conviction to challenge the constitutionality of the statute to which he pled guilty. The question here is whether that right is nonetheless forfeited solely by operation of the plea itself. But as Judge Friendly summarized this court's Black Lidge Men doctrine. A defendant who pleads guilty can challenge the challenge his conviction on any constitutional ground that, if asserted before trial, would forever preclude the state from obtaining a valid conviction against him.

Unknown 0:56

Petitioner's claim here is that the Second Amendment and due process clause preclude the government from ever obtaining a valid conviction against him. It thus falls well within the scope of the Black Lidg Mena doctrine. The government's main contention is that petitioner was required to preserve his claim through a conditional plea. But as the drafters of Rule eleven A two noted in the advisory notes to that uh to that rule, The uh The Supreme Court has held that certain kinds of constitutional objections may be raised after a plea of guilty. Rule eleven A two has no application to such situations and should not be interpreted as either broadening or narrowing the Black Leg the Black Legmena doctrine or as establishing procedures for its application.

John G. Roberts 1:49

I should know this but I don't. The uh in the s situation in Blackledge and else, can the government Specify that those claims are waived? In other words, spell it out. You are waiving any double jeopardy claim to

Unknown 2:03

Yes, Your Honor. Both a double jeopardy and a prosecutorial vindictiveness claim are waivable. And so our contention here is not that these claims cannot be waived. Our contention here is that they were not explicitly waived in the plea agreement and they were not otherwise forfeited by operation of the plea itself. And I think it's useful to take a step back and look at the categories of rights that are at stake when a defendant pleads guilty. So first are the defendants' trial rights. The defendant who's pleading guilty is affirmatively waiving those rights by saying that they're not going to trial, they're affirmatively waiving the protections uh that the the very right to a trial, um and those trial rights themselves.

Unknown 2:44

The second class of rights that are at stake are those procedural and evidentiary rights that would go to the reliability of the defendant's conviction. So for example, Fourth Amendment rights against search and seizure or Fifth Amendment rights against self incrimination. And the court has held in Talit and in the Brady trilogy that those rights need not be affirmatively waived but are effectively foreclosed by the plea of guilty because Uh once a defendant pleads guilty, we're no longer worried, for example, about whether the evidence against him was properly obtained. But the third category of rights, which are the rights at stake here, are those which Where the defendant is saying that the government cannot obtain a valid conviction against me regardless of the procedures that are used, regardless of the evidence that is amassed.

Samuel A. Alito 3:36

Another situation in which we ask whether the a defendant uh is asserting the right not to be tried is uh in determining whether there's a right to a an interlocutory appeal. So would you say that If a right is one that can uh be protected through an interlocutory appeal, it would fall within this doctrine.

Unknown 4:01

Uh It would seem so the double jeopardy um uh that's one that can

Samuel A. Alito 4:06

be appealed in in an interlocutory appeal.

Unknown 4:09

But but we think that the category is broader than that, because for example, the prosecutorial vindictiveness claim is not something that can be appealed through interlocutory appeal.

Samuel A. Alito 4:18

How about a speech or debate uh clause claim?