Title

Lafler v. Cooper

Presenter Information

John Wynne
Matthew Klein

Document Type

Oral Presentation

Location

SURC 271

Start Date

17-5-2012

End Date

17-5-2012

Abstract

Lafler v. Cooper Matt Klein and John Wynne Central Washington University April 11, 2012 Abstract In the United States about 90% of court cases utilize some form of plea bargaining system. Therefore, the rights and protections for individuals who utilize plea bargains cannot be ignored. In the case of Lafler v. Cooper; the United States Supreme Court held that in the event of ineffective counsel, previously offered plea agreements must be reoffered. Then it is up to the court’s discretion to vacate the convictions and resentence using the reoffered pleas agreement; vacate only some of the convictions and resentence accordingly; or leave the convictions and sentence undisturbed. This case expands on the ruling of Strickland v Washington, giving the States a mandate to follow if Strickland is invoked. In this presentation the facts of Lafer v. Cooper will be discussed, as well as the delving into the decision of the court and the dissenting opinion of several of the justices. In addition, the possible policy implications and the ramifications of this case’s decision on future court decisions regarding ineffective counsel will be examined.

Faculty Mentor(s)

Charles Reasons

Additional Mentoring Department

Law and Justice

This document is currently not available here.

Share

COinS
 
May 17th, 10:00 AM May 17th, 11:20 AM

Lafler v. Cooper

SURC 271

Lafler v. Cooper Matt Klein and John Wynne Central Washington University April 11, 2012 Abstract In the United States about 90% of court cases utilize some form of plea bargaining system. Therefore, the rights and protections for individuals who utilize plea bargains cannot be ignored. In the case of Lafler v. Cooper; the United States Supreme Court held that in the event of ineffective counsel, previously offered plea agreements must be reoffered. Then it is up to the court’s discretion to vacate the convictions and resentence using the reoffered pleas agreement; vacate only some of the convictions and resentence accordingly; or leave the convictions and sentence undisturbed. This case expands on the ruling of Strickland v Washington, giving the States a mandate to follow if Strickland is invoked. In this presentation the facts of Lafer v. Cooper will be discussed, as well as the delving into the decision of the court and the dissenting opinion of several of the justices. In addition, the possible policy implications and the ramifications of this case’s decision on future court decisions regarding ineffective counsel will be examined.