Missouri v. Frye
The Court ruled that a defendant's right to effective legal help covers the plea-bargaining stage, so a lawyer who lets a favorable plea offer quietly expire without telling the client can violate the Constitution.
Because roughly 95% of criminal convictions come from guilty pleas, the Court said this negotiation stage is now as constitutionally protected as a trial, though the defendant still must show the deal would actually have gone through before winning relief.
How it got here: A Missouri trial court denied Frye's ineffective-assistance claim, the Missouri Court of Appeals reversed in his favor, and the State sought Supreme Court review.
The Case in Depth
What happened
Galin Frye was charged with a felony for repeatedly driving on a revoked license. Prosecutors offered to let him plead to a misdemeanor with a 90-day sentence, but his lawyer never told him about the offer before it expired. Frye later pleaded guilty with no deal and was sentenced to three years, then argued his lawyer's silence cost him a much better outcome.
The question before the Court
If a defense lawyer never tells a client about a favorable plea deal and it expires, does that count as a Sixth Amendment violation?
The Court's answer
Yes — the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of effective legal help extends to plea negotiations, so a lawyer who lets a formal, time-limited plea offer expire without telling the client can violate the Constitution. The Court reasoned that because roughly 95% of convictions come from guilty pleas, negotiating a plea is now the "critical stage" of most criminal cases, not the trial itself.
But winning on that violation isn't automatic. A defendant must also show a reasonable probability he would have taken the lost deal, and a reasonable probability the prosecutor would not have withdrawn it and the judge would have approved it. Because the lower court skipped that second step, the Court sent Frye's case back to Missouri courts to sort out whether, under state law, the original deal would actually have gone through.
Curious how the Court got there? See the step-by-step legal reasoning →
Why it matters
Defense attorneys nationwide now have a clear constitutional duty to promptly tell clients about formal plea offers, or risk having convictions undone. Prosecutors and courts may respond by documenting offers in writing or on the record to protect against later claims, changing everyday practice in the vast majority of criminal cases that end in pleas rather than trials.
What changes now
The case goes back to the Missouri Court of Appeals to decide whether, under Missouri law, the prosecutor could have withdrawn the plea offer and whether the trial judge could have rejected it. Because Frye committed a new driving offense just before his scheduled hearing, the Supreme Court flagged real doubt that the original deal would have survived. This is a final merits ruling on the constitutional question, even though further fact-specific proceedings remain.
What this does not decide
The Court did not decide whether Frye is entitled to any relief — only that he must additionally show the plea deal would have survived possible cancellation by the prosecutor or rejection by the trial judge, an unresolved state-law question sent back to Missouri's courts.
Concurrences and dissents
Dissent — Justice Scalia
Justice Scalia argued that because Frye's own guilty plea was voluntary and untainted by bad advice, there was no constitutional injury at all — a defendant has no entitlement to a plea offer in the first place. He warned that constitutionalizing plea bargaining creates unworkable, speculative inquiries into what prosecutors and judges would have done, and would let courts overturn valid, fair convictions based on lawyers' negotiating mistakes rather than any unfairness in the conviction itself.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court applied the two-part test from Strickland v. Washington, which requires showing both that a lawyer's performance was deficient and that the deficiency caused real harm, and confirmed this test governs plea-bargaining just as it governs trials.
- The Court held that plea negotiations count as a 'critical stage' of a criminal case entitled to the same constitutional protection as courtroom proceedings, because guilty pleas resolve the vast majority of criminal cases rather than trials.
- The Court set a general rule that defense lawyers must communicate formal, time-limited plea offers to their clients, since failing to do so is the kind of error that falls below a reasonable standard of legal representation.
- To show the harm required under Strickland, the Court ruled that a defendant must prove two things: a reasonable probability he would have accepted the lost offer, and a reasonable probability that prosecutors would not have withdrawn it and the trial judge would have approved it.
- Applying this standard, the Court found Frye's lawyer's silence was clearly deficient, but concluded the lower court had skipped the second requirement by not asking whether the prosecution and trial judge would actually have let the deal go through.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Reaffirms Hill v. Lockhart (474 U. S. 52)
The Court kept Hill's rule for defendants who plead guilty but says it isn't the only way to prove harm from bad advice.
Reaffirms Padilla v. Kentucky
The Court relied on Padilla's statement that plea bargaining is a critical stage of a criminal case.