Missouri v. Frye (10-444)

argument 10-444

Missouri v. Frye

Supreme Court of the United States 55 min 6 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 6 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 issue of the Fry plea‑bargaining dispute?

John G. Roberts 0:01

We'll hear argument next in case ten four four four four four four four four four four four four four four four four four four Missouri versus Fry. General Coster.

General Coster 0:07

Mr Chief Justice, and may it please the Court. But for counsel's heir, the defendant would have insisted on going to trial. That is the test for prejudice, but in Mr Fry's case that test was not met. The truth is, despite counsel's error, Mr Fry knowingly waived his right to trial and solemnly admitted his guilt. Under both Hill and Primo, Mr. Fry has failed to show prejudice, and therefore his guilty plea remains voluntary, intelligent, and final. Mr Fry may not assert ineffective assistance by alleging that, but for Council's heir, he could have gotten a better deal on an earlier date. That is not the standard. and the Court of Appeal should be reversed.

Elena Kagan 0:50

Council sometimes one's experience has to be challenged. I, for one, have never heard of a case. in which parties are discussing a plea a except in the most unusual of circumstances, and they advance a court date. to enter the plea. In most cases they just wait till the court date and Tell the judge I'm ready to plead guilty. Um it this is such an unusual case because the plea happens on day one. Um The courts below is assuming that between day one and day five or three or four The guy would have come in and pled guilty, would have advanced the later court date.

General Coster 1:36

Well the plea the the plea occurred on March third, two thousand No, that's

Elena Kagan 1:40

the second plea, but

General Coster 1:50

He commits

Elena Kagan 1:50

the crime on the twenty ninth or the thirtieth. He commits a second offense on the twenty ninth or thirtieth?

General Coster 1:55

Actually it was a fifth offense, but yes.

Elena Kagan 1:57

All right. My my point is how reasonable could it be for the for a court to assume that the plea offer had been made and that he would have taken it. before the January court date that was set.

General Coster 2:13

It would be less than likely but not impossible, I would say. And it would depend on a a myriad of circumstances, many of which are as uh as it could be just uh dependent on the defense counsel's own personal schedule. But the scheduling of a plea once once an agreement has been made between a prosecutor and a defense counsel. the scheduling of a plea I think is i is largely a basis of convenience and does not necessarily

John G. Roberts 2:47

You know, there is really bad evidence out there that they don't have yet, and if I I want to nail this deal down as soon as possible. I mean that that would be a reason to ex to to move things up and get the plea in early, wouldn't it?

General Coster 3:00

It could be. I would say that that is uh that is possible. I don't Right. But it's also uh e exactly another reason to keep the discretion of offering these plea bargains and the ability to take these plea bargains back, uh, solely in the hands of of the prosecutors of the country. I'm really

Samuel A. Alito 3:16

puzzled by what as a practical matter is at stake in this case. Under the state court decision, the uh defendant has the option of either pleading guilty to the charge, in which case he'll be right back where he is now. Or he can insist on a trial. And if he insists on a trial uh you need to prove that he was driving with a revoked license. That seems to me if there ever was a slam dunk trial, that seems to me that's the slam dunk trial. Uh you introduce the records of showing that his license was revoked and you have the officer testify on such and such a date he was driving. So I I don't really see what is involved in this case. You uh the the last part of the question I don't see what is at stake here.

Samuel A. Alito 4:03

I don't see but that As a practical matter, this seems to be for me to be a case about nothing. Am I wrong? Am I missing something?

General Coster 4:11

As as uh as a former prosecutor myself, I would agree with this. This gentleman went into court. He had two options before him. There was not a third option. The plea that was uh that uh left reality on December twenty eighth was not there on March third. He had a binary choice between uh two options on March third. He chose not trial. By choosing not trial, it leaves us without a situation where he either Hill or Primo, prejudice can be shown.