Jae Lee v. United States

Last updated
Jae Lee v. United States
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 28, 2017
Decided June 23, 2017
Full case nameJae Lee v. United States
Docket no. 16-327
Citations582 U.S. ___ ( more )
Argument Oral argument
Opinion announcement Opinion announcement
Case history
PriorUnited States v. Lee, 825 F.3d 311
SubsequentJae Lee v. United States, 14-5369 (6th Cir. 2017) (on remand)
Holding
When a criminal defendant raises Sixth Amendment Ineffective assistance of counsel claims, they only need to prove by reasonable probability that they were wrongly prejudiced by their counsel to accept a plea deal rather than go to trial.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Anthony Kennedy  · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg  · Stephen Breyer
Samuel Alito  · Sonia Sotomayor
Elena Kagan  · Neil Gorsuch
Case opinions
MajorityRoberts, joined by Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan
DissentThomas, joined by Alito (except part I)
Gorsuch took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
VI Amendment

Jae Lee v. United States, 582 U.S. ___ (2017), was a Supreme Court case in which the Court held that when a criminal defendant raises Sixth Amendment ineffective assistance of counsel claims, they only need to prove by reasonable probability that they were wrongly prejudiced by their counsel to accept a plea deal rather than go to trial. The Court specified that the issue did not arise from a possibility that the outcome of Lee's conviction would've been different had he gone to trial. The case was largely decided based on the landmark case Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668 (1984).

Contents

Historical context

55-year-old South Korean immigrant Jae Lee, and his family, immigrated to New York, United States, in 1982 at the age of 13. After graduating high school in New York he moved to Memphis, Tennessee and, with support from his parents, opened a Chinese restaurant in a Memphis suburb. [1] While he found some success as a restaurateur, even opening a second restaurant nearby, Lee ultimately turned to illicit substances for further capital gains, which was known since 1999. [2] [3]

Sting operation setup

In very early December 2008, a confidential informant (CI) informed the Drug Enforcement Administration Memphis Division and the United States Attorney's Office that they had personally purchased 200 ecstasy pills and 2 ounces of hydroponic marijuana from Lee over a period lasting from January 2001 to December 2008. [2] The CI told authorities that they had a debt with Lee in an amount of $150, and on December 8, 2008, they gave the CI $150 in government funds to pay the debt at Lee's residence while they surveilled them from the outside. When the CI returned, they claimed to have witnessed Lee personally wrap 15 ecstasy tablets in cellophane.

On December 11, the authorities further provided the CI with $300 to buy 15 ecstasy pills from Lee, and while inside Lee informed the CI he now charged $20 per pill instead of $15, and the CI made the purchase anyway. With this information and proof, on January 6, 2009, the DEA executed a federal search warrant on Lee's residence. During the search of his home, the authorities found 88 ecstasy pills, 3 Valium tablets, $32,432 in cash, and a Norinco, Model 90, 7.62 caliber rifle.

District Court

Finally, on January 28, 2009, a federal grand jury returned a single-count indictment against Lee for possession of ecstasy with an intent to distribute. On June 17, 2009, Lee presented himself before U.S. District Court Judge Bernice B. Donald and, in accordance with a plea bargain, pleaded guilty to the sole count. Lee, under advisement from his lawyer, fully believed this conviction wouldn't affect his current immigration status, that being a permanent resident. Lee was concerned about what this conviction would be for his lawful status, a concern even somewhat brought up by Lee during the plea bargain hearing,

Judge: And are you a U.S. citizen?

Lee: No, Your Honor.

Judge: Okay. A conviction on this charge then could result in your being deported. It could also affect your ability to attain the status of a United States citizen. If you do become a United States citizen, it could affect your rights to participate in certain federal benefits, such as student loans.

Does that affect at all your decision about whether you want to plead guilty or not?

Lee: Yes, Your Honor.

Judge: Okay. How does it affect your decision?

Lee: I don't understand.

Judge: Okay. Well, knowing those things do you still want to go forward and plead guilty?

Lee: Yes, Your Honor.

The sentence and final judgement were fully entered on October 22, 2009, due to some delays, and Lee did not directly appeal his sentence.

Lee's appeal

On September 24, 2010, Lee filed a § 2255 (vacate, set aside, or correct a sentence) motion, which was eventually referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge Diane Vescovo on January 5, 2012. Judge Vescovo conducted an evidentiary hearing and eventually on August 6, 2013, she released a Recommendation and Report (R&R) to District Court Judge John Folkes in favor of Lee. Her reasoning was,

"Fitzgerald's representation of Lee was objectively unreasonable in that he affirmatively misadvised Lee as to the immigration consequences of pleading guilty to the drug-trafficking crime for which Lee was indicted."

Despite the R&R in Lee's favor, Judge Folkes dismissed Lee's arguments and vacated Judge Vescovo's judgement on March 20, 2014. The reason for rejection was due to the fact "Lee [had] not established prejudice."

Circuit Court of Appeals

After the ruling against him, Lee appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit which held oral arguments on January 28, 2016, and filed its decision on June 8. [1] In its decision written by Circuit Court Judge Alice Batchelder the Circuit Court affirmed the District Court's decision, largely basing it off the fact "that prejudice requires showing a “substantial, not just conceivable,” chance of a different result..." citing Harrington v. Richter , 562 U.S. 112 (2011). The Court, interestingly, did however seem to show compassion toward Lee's situation, saying,

"In reaching this conclusion, we should not be read as endorsing Lee’s impending deportation. It is unclear to us why it is in our national interests—much less the interests of justice—to exile a productive member of our society to a country he hasn’t lived in since childhood for committing a relatively small-time drug offense. But our duty is neither to prosecute nor to pardon; it is simply to say “what the law is.” Marbury v. Madison , 5 U.S. 137, 177 (1803)." [4]

Supreme Court decision

Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion. Official roberts CJ.jpg
Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion.

Lee then further appealed to the Supreme Court, which granted certiorari on December 14, 2016, held arguments on March 28, 2017, and handed down its decision on June 23, 2017. In a 6-2 decision, the Court sided with Lee, overturned the Circuit and District Court's decisions, and remanded the case. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion, with Justice Clarence Thomas writing a dissent, and was joined by Justice Samuel Alito.

Majority opinion

Source: [3]

The majority opinion established the issue at fact, and there was no issue in regards to whether the advice Lee's lawyer gave him was "effective", which it wasn't. The issue at hand was "whether Lee can show he was prejudiced by that erroneous advice."

The majority denies the dissent's claims as well, saying,

"The dissent contends that a defendant must also show that he would have been better off going to trial. That is true when the defendant’s decision about going to trial turns on his prospects of success and those are affected by the attorney’s error—for instance, where a defendant alleges that his lawyer should have but did not seek to suppress an improperly obtained confession. Premo v. Moore , 562 U. S. 115, 118 (2011)"

The majority realizes and admits the fact the case was interesting in its "he said, she said" type demeanor, saying,

"Lee, on the other hand, argues he can establish prejudice under Hill because he never would have accepted a guilty plea had he known that he would be deported as a result. Lee insists he would have gambled on trial, risking more jail time for whatever small chance there might be of an acquittal that would let him remain in the United States The Government responds that, since Lee had no viable defense at trial, he would almost certainly have lost and found himself still subject to deportation, with a lengthier prison sentence to boot. Lee, the Government contends, cannot show prejudice from accepting a plea where his only hope at trial was that something unexpected and unpredictable might occur that would lead to an acquittal." (citation omitted)

The Court ultimately ruled in favor of Lee from its belief that had his attorney not misled him as to the effect the plea bargain on his immigration status, he likely wouldn't have taken it, saying,

"Lee’s claim that he would not have accepted a plea had he known it would lead to deportation is backed by substantial and uncontroverted evidence. Accordingly we conclude Lee has demonstrated a “reasonable probability that, but for [his] counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial. Hill" (citation omitted)

Thomas' dissent

Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Alito in all but Part I, wrote a dissenting opinion, firstly stating that at this point "[T]he Court today holds that a defendant can undo a guilty plea, well after sentencing and in the face of overwhelming evidence of guilt". [5]

Thomas rejects the use of the Sixth Amendment in this case, citing his dissent in Padilla v. Kentucky , 559 U.S. 356, 388 (2010). He further dissents on the fact that Strickland establishes that Lee must show "reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” He argues that even if Lee had not taken the plea and gone to trial originally, the outcome would have been no different and thus fails to meet the strict Strickland standards.

Related Research Articles

In United States law, an Alford plea, also called a Kennedy plea in West Virginia, an Alford guilty plea, and the Alford doctrine, is a guilty plea in criminal court, whereby a defendant in a criminal case does not admit to the criminal act and asserts innocence, but accepts imposition of a sentence. This plea is allowed even if the evidence to be presented by the prosecution would be likely to persuade a judge or jury to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This can be caused by circumstantial evidence and testimony favoring the prosecution, and difficulty finding evidence and witnesses that would aid the defense.

A plea bargain is an agreement in criminal law proceedings, whereby the prosecutor provides a concession to the defendant in exchange for a plea of guilt or nolo contendere. This may mean that the defendant will plead guilty to a less serious charge, or to one of the several charges, in return for the dismissal of other charges; or it may mean that the defendant will plead guilty to the original criminal charge in return for a more lenient sentence.

United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74 (2004), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that, in a criminal proceeding in federal court, a defendant who does not alert the district court to a possible violation of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure must show on appeal that the violation affirmatively affected his rights in order to obtain reversal of his conviction by guilty plea. Rule 11, which pertains to criminal prosecutions in United States federal courts only, governs the offering of plea bargains to criminal defendants and the procedures district courts must employ to ensure that the defendant knows of and properly waives his trial-related constitutional rights.

North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed that there are no constitutional barriers in place to prevent a judge from accepting a guilty plea from a defendant who wants to plead guilty, while still protesting his innocence, under duress, as a detainee status. This type of plea has become known as an Alford plea, differing slightly from the nolo contendere plea in which the defendant agrees to being sentenced for the crime, but does not admit guilt. Alford died in prison in 1975.

In United States law, ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) is a claim raised by a convicted criminal defendant asserting that the defendant's legal counsel performed so ineffectively that it deprived the defendant of the constitutional right guaranteed by the Assistance of Counsel Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Ineffectiveness claims may only be brought where the defendant had the right to counsel, ordinarily during the critical stages of a prosecution.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), was a landmark Supreme Court case that established the standard for determining when a criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel is violated by that counsel's inadequate performance.

Heath v. Alabama, 474 U.S. 82 (1985), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that, because of the doctrine of "dual sovereignty", the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution does not prohibit one state from prosecuting and punishing somebody for an act of which they had already been convicted of and sentenced for in another state.

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that the federal appeals courts may not presume that a sentence falling outside the range recommended by the Federal Sentencing Guidelines is unreasonable. Applying this rule to the case at hand, it upheld a sentence of 36 months' probation imposed on a man who pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute ecstasy in the face of a recommended sentence of 30 to 37 months in prison.

Padilla v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court decided that criminal defense attorneys must advise noncitizen clients about the deportation risks of a guilty plea. The case extended the Supreme Court's prior decisions on criminal defendants' Sixth Amendment right to counsel to immigration consequences.

Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (1970), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court refused to hold that large sentencing discounts and threats of the death penalty are sufficient evidence of coercion.

United States v. Jackson, 390 U.S. 570 (1968), was a United States Supreme Court decision that ruled part of the Federal Kidnapping Act unconstitutional.

North v. Russell, 427 U.S. 328 (1976), is a United States Supreme Court case which held that a non-lawyer jurist can constitutionally sit in a jail-carrying criminal case provided that the defendant has an opportunity through an appeal to obtain a second trial before a judge who is a lawyer.

The Assistance of Counsel Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right...to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

Ham v. South Carolina, 409 U.S. 524 (1973), was a United States Supreme Court decision concerning examinations of prospective jurors during voir dire. The Court held that the trial court's failure to "have the jurors interrogated on the issue of racial bias" violated the petitioner's due process right under the Fourteenth Amendment. This right does not extend to any question of bias, but it does not preclude questions of relevant biases.

North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 (1969), is a United States Supreme Court case that forbids judicial “vindictiveness” from playing a role in the increased sentence a defendant receives after a new trial. In sum, due process requires that a defendant be “free of apprehension” of judicial vindictiveness. Time served for a new conviction of the same offense must be “fully credited,” and a trial judge seeking to impose a greater sentence on retrial must affirmatively state the reasons for imposing such a sentence. The companion case, Simpson v. Rice, was identical except that the defendant initially pleaded guilty and received only one trial after withdrawing that plea. Simpson was later overruled in Alabama v. Smith.

Chaidez v. United States, 568 U.S. 342 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case that determined that the ruling in Padilla v. Commonwealth of Kentucky could not be applied retroactively, because the Padilla case applied a new rule to the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Padilla v. Kentucky held that the Sixth Amendment made it mandatory for criminal defense attorneys to advise non-citizen clients about the deportation risks of a guilty plea. While Padilla v. Kentucky was a case related to immigration and deportation, Justice Scalia worried that there was "no logical stopping point" to how Padilla v. Commonwealth of Kentucky can be applied. Justice Scalia wondered if the same logic could be extended and applied to numerous other cases, and felt it would be impossible for attorneys to make sure any client was informed of all the potential legal consequences post trial.

Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court clarified the Sixth Amendment standard for reversing convictions due to ineffective assistance of counsel during plea bargaining. The Court ruled that when a lawyer's ineffective assistance leads to the rejection of a plea agreement, a defendant is entitled to relief if the outcome of the plea process would have been different with competent advice. In such cases, the Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment requires the trial judge to exercise discretion to determine an appropriate remedy.

Iowa v. Tovar, 541 U.S. 77 (2004), was a unanimous decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that clarified how well-informed a defendant had to be to waive their right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment. The defendant in this case had waived his right to counsel and pled guilty to drunk driving, and then had been convicted of drunk driving twice more, with sentences increasing as his convictions piled up. He argued that the judge in the first case had not explained that multiple drunk driving convictions would lead to more severe sentences, so his waiver of counsel had been invalid. The Supreme Court disagreed, saying that the judge's warnings had been adequate, and the defendants' waiver was "knowing, voluntary, and intelligent."

United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985), was a Supreme Court of the United States case that established the standard for materiality under Brady v. Maryland.

Hemphill v. New York, 595 U.S. ___ (2022), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court involving the application of Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In its decision, the Court ruled on when a criminal defendant who opens the door to otherwise inadmissible evidence also opens the door to evidence that would otherwise be excluded by the Confrontation Clause.

References

  1. 1 2 Batchelder, Alice. "Opinion -Jae Lee v. United States 825 F.3d 311". courtlistener.com. Retrieved 25 March 2024.
  2. 1 2 Folkes, John. "Opinion - Lee v. United States, Case No. 2:10-cv-02698-JTF-dkv (W.D. Tenn. Mar. 20, 2014)". casetext.com. Retrieved 25 March 2024.
  3. 1 2 Roberts, John. "Majority Opinion - Lee v. United States, 582 U.S. ___ (2017)". supreme.justia.com. Retrieved 25 March 2024.
  4. ↑ Liptak, Adam (23 June 2017). "Justices Side With Immigrant Who Got Bad Legal Advice". The New York Times . Retrieved 25 March 2024.
  5. ↑ Thomas, Clarence. "Dissenting Opinion (Thomas) - Lee v. United States, 582 U.S. ___ (2017)". supreme.justia.com. Retrieved 25 March 2024.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.