Defense Counsel and Sentencing: Tenth Circuit Indicates That Lawyers Must Advise Clients on Relevant Conduct
In a criminal-justice system dominated by plea-bargaining and harsh sentencing laws, the core responsibility of a defense lawyer is no longer to seek acquittals at trial, but to minimize the harm suffered by the client as a result of a conviction. Ineffective assistance law should reflect this reality. Padilla v. Kentucky and its progeny (see this post) suggest that there may indeed be a growing appreciation in the courts that defense counsel must be knowledgeable and provide good advice about the crucial things that happen to a defendant post-conviction. Although the courts have long recognized as much in capital cases, it is good to see more attention now being given to the role of defense counsel in the noncapital setting.
Complementing what is happening in the collateral-consequences cases, the Tenth Circuit recently ruled that a defendant’s right to effective assistance was violated when his lawyer did not warn him of the dangers of confessing to uncharged criminal conduct during a presentence investigation meeting with a probation officer.