Missouri Argues That Even if the State is Wrong You Have No Rights

State Has Troubles with that “Government of the People Thing”

Suppose you were charged with a felony and the government, as it usually does, offers you a plea bargain.  As the accused you can accept the plea bargain, or take your chances in court.  Except that if your attorney never informs you of the plea bargain, how exactly do you make the choice?

This is the issue in a case to be argued before the Supreme Court.

After being charged with a felony for driving with a revoked license, Respondent Galin E. Frye was offered two plea bargain options: one, plead guilty to the felony with a recommended three years of imprisonment, or two, plead guilty to a misdemeanor with a recommended 90 days in jail. However, Frye’s counsel never informed him of the plea options, and he subsequently pled guilty to the original felony charge. Frye now appeals, arguing that his counsel’s failure to inform him of the plea bargain violated his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. The State of Missouri, as Petitioner, argues that Frye’s situation falls outside of Sixth Amendment protections, and that, even if he was wronged, there is no available remedy.

Now common sense would seem to argue that yes, Mr. Frye has a clear case of ineffectual counsel here.  But that is not the point we want to make.  The point is this sentence here.

The State of Missouri, as Petitioner, argues . . . that, even if he was wronged, there is no available remedy.

This is the type of statement that might be made in a totalitarian state, a place where government is always right, a place where people have no rights, a place where if the government imprisons a person illegally, too bad.  It does not seem to be the type of statement made in a democracy, but there it is.