Supreme Court Imposes Limitations on Appellate Waivers in Plea Bargains
Earlier this year, the Plea Bargaining Institute filed an amicus brief with the United States Supreme Court in the matter of Hunter v. United States. In that brief, the institute encouraged the “Court to recognize that plea bargaining is not inherently reliable and, therefore, the imposition of limitations and guardrails for plea bargaining practices is vital to the establishment of an accurate, just, and constitutional plea bargaining system.” In an 8-1 decision last week, the Supreme Court did precisely that, ruling that “an agreement not to appeal a sentence is unenforceable when it would result in a miscarriage of justice — meaning, when it would leave in place the kind of egregious error that would bring the judicial system into disrepute.”
While Justice Kagan’s opinion for the Court focused on the narrow issue presented, Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Sotomayor and Justice Jackson, took the opportunity to discuss concerns with the plea system more broadly. He opened by stating, “In our times, the jury trial has given way to a conveyor belt of plea bargains. At least some responsibility for that development lies with this Court. When confronted with coercive prosecutorial tactics designed to induce defendants to take plea deals, the Court has often condoned those practices or let them pass in silence. Today, the Court begins to correct course.” Justice Gorsuch then discussed, among other things, the historic rise of plea bargaining, the role of sentencing differentials, and the knowing and voluntary requirements for pleas of guilty, subjects discussed in detail in the PBI brief.
In concluding his review of the case and the modern plea system, Justice Gorsuch wrote: “Two hundred years ago, it was likely unimaginable that almost every federal criminal case would be resolved by plea bargain. Forty years ago, it may have been no easier to foresee that plea bargaining defendants would be pressed to waive their statutory right to appeal sentences yet to be imposed. Let alone that the federal government would argue these waivers prevent defendants from appealing even blatantly unlawful or unconstitutional sentences chosen by an orangutan. This Court is not responsible for all these developments, but it has encouraged some of them and stood silent while others took hold. Today, the Court finally begins to correct course, taking an important step toward reining in appeal waivers. It is not a solution to all of plea bargaining’s excesses, and perhaps not even those associated with appeal waivers. But it is a start.”
As the courts, including the Supreme Court, continue to examine the role of plea bargaining in our modern system of criminal law and determine the appropriate limitations and guardrails for imposition, the Plea Bargaining Institute remains ready to assist by providing the courts, practitioners, and advocates with access to the leading research in the field to help inform and guide their decision-making.