Thursday, November 7, 2013
Rory Little (UC-Hastings) has this post at ScotusBlog.In part:
In the end, the Court’s unsatisfying engagement with the messy realities of plea bargaining and varying lawyer talents and efforts, may persuade it to withdraw from the Lafler-Frye field for a while. Although then again, perhaps not. Justice Alito was a strong dissenter in those cases, and this case did not provide the vehicle the Court thought it might to address questions of remedy that continue to confound the lower courts. Thus the Court may well still be looking for vehicles to advance the law down the new road that Lafler, Frye, and 2010’s Padilla decision opened. But Titlow suggests that they will be looking for direct review cases from the state and federal courts to clarify the law in this area, rather than through the foggy filter that federal habeas doctrine imposes.