The Supreme Court Friday sided with a Korean immigrant who faced deportation as a result of faulty legal advice he received from his criminal defense attorney.
The Supreme Court Friday sided with a Korean immigrant who faced deportation as a result of faulty legal advice he received from his criminal defense attorney.
In a 6-2 opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court explained that a decision to risk almost certain conviction at trial in hopes of avoiding deportation is reasonable. The opinion was joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a dissent joined by Justice Samuel Alito.
The case arose in 2009 when a lawful permanent resident named Jae Lee was arrested for possessing ecstasy with intent to distribute. Lee and his family immigrated to the United States when he was 13. He resided in the U. S. for over 20 years, operated two successful restaurants in the Memphis, Tenn. suburbs, and never returned to his native Korea.
After his arrest, Lee accepted a plea deal from federal prosecutors to serve 366 days in prison. Though he repeatedly expressed concerns to his lawyer about the prospect of deportation, he was assured that accepting the plea bargain would not result in his removal from the United States. The advice, however, was incorrect, and the government announced it would deport Lee at the conclusion of his prison sentence.
Lee sought to have his plea and conviction set aside for ineffective assistance of counsel. Lee argued avoiding deportation was the most important factor in his decision making, and that his choice to accept his lawyer’s advise turned on the assurance he would not be removed. The government countered that Lee could not show he had been prejudiced by his lawyer’s bad advise, because the evidence against him, overwhelming and incontrovertible, guaranteed a conviction and removal.
The Court disagreed with the government, finding that success at trial should not drive the inquiry. Roberts writes:
But common sense (not to mention our precedent) recognizes that there is more to consider than simply the likelihood of success at trial. The decision whether to plead guilty also involves assessing the respective consequences of a conviction after trial and by plea. When those consequences are, from the defendant’s perspective, similarly dire, even the smallest chance of success at trial may look attractive. For example, a defendant with no realistic defense to a charge carrying a 20-year sentence may nevertheless choose trial, if the prosecution’s plea offer is 18 years. Here Lee alleges that avoiding deportation was the determinative factor for him; deportation after some time in prison was not meaningfully different from deportation after somewhat less time. He says he accordingly would have rejected any plea leading to deportation—even if it shaved off prison time—in favor of throwing a “Hail Mary” at trial.
The opinion makes no mention of the possibility that Lee would seek to avoid deportation through the plea bargaining process itself. During oral arguments in March, Justice Kagan suggested that Lee could negotiate a plea entailing a longer jail sentence provided he was not removed from the United States.
The outcome was somewhat surprising, as Roberts himself seemed rather hostile to Lee’s position when the case was argued.
Writing in dissent, Justice Thomas warned the ruling would have “pernicious consequences for the criminal justice system.”
“The Court today provides no assurance that plea deals negotiated in good faith with guilty defendants will remain final, ” he wrote.
Follow Kevin on Twitter
Send tips to [email protected] .
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected] .
