On April 15th the United States Supreme Court heard oral argument in United States v Davila. The issue is whether the court of appeals erred in holding that any degree of judicial participation in plea negotiations, in violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1), automatically requires vacatur of a defendant’s guilty plea, irrespective of whether the error prejudiced the defendant. The transcript of the argument can be found here. Because the fact situation is so unique at first blush one might ask why the United States Supreme Court selected this case to spend time on. The defendant was appointed a lawyer and tried to fire him. As a result there was an appearance before a magistrate judge ex parte ostensibly to deal with the counsel issue. So far so good but the issue arose when the magistrate judge said: “[o]ftentimes … the best advice a lawyer can give” is to plead guilty.  “[T]here may not be a viable defense.”  “It might be a good idea for the Defendant to … plead guilty and go to sentencing.”  He continued:

The only thing at your disposal … is the two or three level reduction for acceptance of responsibility.  That means you’ve got to go to the cross.  You’ve got to tell the probation officer everything you did … regardless of how bad it makes you appear. … Mr. Davila, someone with your criminal history needs a three-level reduction for acceptance.  ….In order to get the reduction for acceptance, you’ve got to come to the cross.”