Missouri v. Frye

Background

Galin Frye, charged with driving with a revoked license after prior convictions, received a written letter from the prosecutor offering two plea options that expired December 28. Frye’s lawyer did not tell him about those offers. The offers lapsed, Frye later pleaded guilty without a deal, and the trial court sentenced him to three years. A state appeals court found counsel ineffective and ordered relief, and the Supreme Court agreed to review the case.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether the Sixth Amendment’s right to effective counsel covers the negotiation and communication of plea offers that lapse or are rejected. The Court held that, as a general rule, defense lawyers must communicate formal plea offers to defendants. To show constitutional prejudice from a missed offer, a defendant must prove a reasonable probability they would have accepted the earlier offer and that the prosecution and trial court would have allowed the deal to become final. The Court said the Missouri appeals court was correct that counsel’s performance was deficient but erred by not requiring proof the offer would have been honored. The case was vacated and sent back for further state-law factfinding.

Real world impact

The decision makes clear defense attorneys have a duty to tell clients about formal plea offers, but it narrows automatic relief: defendants must show both they would have accepted and that the deal would have stood. States may adopt additional rules about offers, and courts must assess whether prosecutors or judges would have enforced the bargain.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Scalia (joined by three Justices) dissented, arguing the conviction was fair, warning against making plea bargaining a constitutional minefield, and criticizing the required speculative inquiries.