arguments.csv

sentence,argument
"Based on that assurance, Lee accepted a plea and was sentenced to a year and a day in prison.",0
"When Lee learned of this consequence, he filed a motion to vacate his conviction and sentence, arguing that his attorney had provided constitutionally ineffective assistance.",0
"At an evidentiary hearing, both Lee and his plea-stage counsel testified that "deportation was the determinative issue" to Lee in deciding whether to accept a plea, and Lee's counsel acknowledged that although Lee's defense to the charge was weak, if he had known Lee would be deported upon pleading guilty, he would have advised him to go to trial.",1
"The District Court, however, denied relief, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed.",0
"Applying the two-part test for ineffective assistance claims from Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668, the Sixth Circuit concluded that, while the Government conceded that Lee's counsel had performed deficiently, Lee could not show that he was prejudiced by his attorney's erroneous advice.",1
"When a defendant claims that his counsel's deficient performance deprived him of a trial by causing him to accept a plea, the defendant can show prejudice by demonstrating a "reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial."",1
"Lee contends that he can make this showing because he never would have accepted a guilty plea had he known the result would be deportation.",1
"The Government contends that Lee 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 acquittal.",1
"For Lee, deportation after some time in prison was not meaningfully different from deportation after somewhat less time; he says he accordingly would have rejected any plea leading to deportation in favor of throwing a "Hail Mary" at trial.",0
"In the unusual circumstances of this case, Lee has adequately demonstrated a reasonable probability that he would have rejected the plea had he known that it would lead to mandatory deportation: Both Lee and his attorney testified that "deportation was the determinative issue" to Lee; his responses during his plea colloquy confirmed the importance he placed on deportation; and he had strong connections to the United States, while he had no ties to South Korea.",1
"The Government argues that Lee cannot "convince the court that a decision to reject the plea bargain would have been rational under the circumstances," Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U. S. 356, 372, since deportation would almost certainly result from a trial.",1
"So Lee, who had no real defense to the charge, opted to accept a plea that carried a lesser prison sentence than he would have faced at trial.",1
"Lee seeks to vacate his conviction on the ground that, in accepting the plea, he received ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment.",1
"Everyone agrees that Lee received objectively unreasonable representation.",1
"Based on that assurance, Lee accepted the plea and the District Court sentenced him to a year and a day in prison, though it deferred commencement of Lee's sentence for two months so that Lee could manage his restaurants over the holiday season.",0
"Upon learning that he would be deported after serving his sentence, Lee filed a motion under 28 U. S. C. §2255 to vacate his conviction and sentence, arguing that his attorney had provided constitutionally ineffective assistance.",0
"At an evidentiary hearing on Lee's motion, both Lee and his plea-stage counsel testified that "deportation was the determinative issue in Lee's decision whether to accept the plea."",1
"Lee's attorney testified that he thought Lee's case was a "bad case to try" because Lee's defense to the charge was weak.",1
"Applying our two-part test for ineffective assistance claims from Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668 (1984), the District Court concluded that Lee's counsel had performed deficiently by giving improper advice about the deportation consequences of the plea.",1
"The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of relief.",0
"On appeal, the Government conceded that the performance of Lee's attorney had been deficient.",1
"Relying on Circuit precedent holding that "no rational defendant charged with a deportable offense and facing overwhelming evidence of guilt would proceed to trial rather than take a plea deal with a shorter prison sentence," the Court of Appeals concluded that Lee could not show prejudice.",1
"The first requirement is not at issue in today's case: The Government concedes that Lee's plea-stage counsel provided inadequate representation when he assured Lee that he would not be deported if he pleaded guilty.",1
"When a defendant alleges his counsel's deficient performance led him to accept a guilty plea rather than go to trial, we do not ask whether, had he gone to trial, the result of that trial "would have been different" than the result of the plea bargain.",0
"We instead consider whether the defendant was prejudiced by the "denial of the entire judicial proceeding . . . to which he had a right."",0
"As we held in Hill v. Lockhart, when a defendant claims that his counsel's deficient performance deprived him of a trial by causing him to accept a plea, the defendant can show prejudice by demonstrating a "reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial."",1
"The dissent contends that a defendant must also show that he would have been better off going to trial.",1
"Rather than asking how a hypothetical trial would have played out absent the error, the Court considered whether there was an adequate showing that the defendant, properly advised, would have opted to go to trial.",0
"The Court rejected the defendant's claim because he had "alleged no special circumstances that might support the conclusion that he placed particular emphasis on his parole eligibility in deciding whether or not to plead guilty."",1
"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.",1
"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.",1
"As a general matter, it makes sense that a defendant who has no realistic defense to a charge supported by sufficient evidence will be unable to carry his burden of showing prejudice from accepting a guilty plea.",0
"And a defendant facing such long odds will rarely be able to show prejudice from accepting a guilty plea that offers him a better resolution than would be likely after trial.",1
"It is instead because defendants obviously weigh their prospects at trial in deciding whether to accept a plea.",0
"Where a defendant has no plausible chance of an acquittal at trial, it is highly likely that he will accept a plea if the Government offers one.",0
"But common sense (not to mention our precedent) recognizes that there is more to consider than simply the likelihood of success at trial.",1
"He says he accordingly would have rejected any plea leading to deportation--even if it shaved off prison time--in favor of throwing a "Hail Mary" at trial.",1
"In the unusual circumstances of this case, we conclude that Lee has adequately demonstrated a reasonable probability that he would have rejected the plea had he known that it would lead to mandatory deportation.",1
"There is no question that "deportation was the determinative issue in Lee's decision whether to accept the plea deal."",0
"Lee asked his attorney repeatedly whether there was any risk of deportation from the proceedings, and both Lee and his attorney testified at the evidentiary hearing below that Lee would have gone to trial if he had known about the deportation consequences.",0
"The Government argues, however, that under Padilla v. Kentucky, a defendant "must convince the court that a decision to reject the plea bargain would have been rational under the circumstances."",1
"The Government contends that Lee cannot make that showing because he was going to be deported either way; going to trial would only result in a longer sentence before that inevitable consequence.",1
"We cannot agree that it would be irrational for a defendant in Lee's position to reject the plea offer in favor of trial.",1
"But for his attorney's incompetence, Lee would have known that accepting the plea agreement would certainly lead to deportation.",1
"Not everyone in Lee's position would make the choice to reject the plea.",1
"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.",1
"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."",1
"I would therefore affirm the Court of Appeals on the ground that the Sixth Amendment does not apply to the allegedly ineffective assistance in this case.",1
"The Court and both of the parties agree that the prejudice inquiry in this context is governed by Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668 (1984).",1
"The parties agree that this inquiry assumes an "objective" decisionmaker.",0
"But that requirement merely reflects the reality that a defendant cannot show that the outcome of his case would have been different if he would have accepted his current plea anyway.",1
"In sum, the proper inquiry requires a defendant to show both that he would have rejected his plea and gone to trial and that he would likely have obtained a more favorable result in the end.",0
"In that case, the defendant argued that his counsel was constitutionally ineffective because he had failed to seek suppression of his confession before he pleaded no contest.",1
"The Court emphasized that, in addition to showing a reasonable probability that the defendant "would have accepted the earlier plea offer," it is also "necessary" to show a "reasonable probability that the end result of the criminal process would have been more favorable by reason of a plea to a lesser charge or a sentence of less prison time."",1
"In short, the Court did not focus solely on whether the defendant would have accepted the plea.",0
"In that case, the Court concluded that counsel may be constitutionally ineffective by causing a defendant to reject a plea deal he should have accepted.",1
"The Court again emphasized that the prejudice inquiry requires a showing that the criminal prosecution would ultimately have ended differently for the defendant--not merely that the defendant would have accepted the deal.",1
"The majority misapplies this Court's precedents when it concludes that a defendant may establish prejudice by showing only that "he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial," without showing that "the result of that trial would have been different than the result of the plea bargain."",1
"For the reasons explained above, that sentence prescribes the threshold showing a defendant must make to establish Strickland prejudice where a defendant has accepted a guilty plea.",0
"In Hill, the Court concluded that the defendant had not made that showing, so it rejected his claim.",0
"There, the Court considered a defendant's claim that his attorney failed to file a notice of appeal.",0
"I agree that such an inquiry is not always necessary--it is not necessary where, as in Hill, the defendant cannot show at the threshold that he would have rejected his plea and chosen to go to trial.",0
"The majority instead distinguishes those cases on the ground that they involved a defendant who did not accept a guilty plea.",0
"According to the majority, those cases "articulated a different way to show prejudice, suited to the context of pleas not accepted."",0
"It instead concludes that one standard applies when a defendant goes to trial (Strickland); another standard applies when a defendant accepts a plea (Hill); and yet another standard applies when counsel does not apprise the defendant of an available plea or when the defendant rejects a plea (Frye and Lafler).",0
"In my view, we should take the Court's precedents at their word and conclude that "[a]n error by counsel . . . does not warrant setting aside the judgment of a criminal proceeding if the error had no effect on the judgment."",0
"In light of this "overwhelming evidence of . . . guilt," 2014 WL 1260388, *15 (WD Tenn., Mar. 20, 2014), the Court of Appeals concluded that petitioner had "no bona fide defense, not even a weak one," 825 F. 3d 311, 316 (CA6 2016).",1
"A defendant in petitioner's shoes, therefore, would have suffered the same deportation consequences regardless of whether he accepted a plea or went to trial.",1
"He is thus plainly better off for having accepted his plea: had he gone to trial, he not only would have faced the same deportation consequences, he also likely would have received a higher prison sentence.",1
"Whereas a defendant asserting an ordinary claim of ineffective assistance of counsel must prove that the ultimate outcome of his case would have been different, the Court today holds that a defendant who pleaded guilty need show only that he would have rejected his plea and gone to trial.",1
"Under its rule, so long as a defendant alleges that his counsel omitted or misadvised him on a piece of information during the plea process that he considered of "paramount importance," ante, at 10, he could allege a plausible claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.",1
"Petitioner suggests that each claim will "at least" require a "hearing to get th[e] facts on the table."",1
"For these reasons, I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.",0
"Those cases involved defendants who alleged that, but for their attorney's incompetence, they would have accepted a plea deal--not, as here and as in Hill, that they would have rejected a plea.",1
"Frye and Lafler articulated a different way to show prejudice, suited to the context of pleas not accepted, not an additional element to the Hill inquiry.",1
"Lee also argues that he can show prejudice because, had his attorney advised him that he would be deported if he accepted the Government's plea offer, he would have bargained for a plea deal that did not result in certain deportation.",1
"[A] defendant has no right to be offered a plea," Missouri v. Frye, 566 U. S. 134, 148 (2012); Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U. S. 156, 168 (2012), and this Court has never concluded that a defendant could show a "reasonable probability" of a different result based on a purely hypothetical plea offer subject to absolute executive discretion.",1