Legal Research

U.S. Supreme Court Case: Wright v. Van Patten

By David Badertscher, PLL

Source: ABA Criminal Justice Section, January 15, 2008.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that nothing in its own precedent prevented a lawyer from participating in a plea hearing by speaker phone. However, the unsigned opinion cautioned that the justices weren't ruling on whether such a practice should be allowed.

"Joseph Van Patten was charged with first-degree intentional homicide under Wisconsin law, but he pleaded guilty in Shawano County to a reduced count of first-degree reckless homicide. His lawyer wasn't physically in the courtroom for the plea hearing, but participated by speaker phone. The judge imposed the maximum 25 years in prison. Van Patten appealed, arguing that representation by speaker phone was "presumptively ineffective" -- ineffectiveness of counsel is often a key element in reversing a conviction or sentence. A federal appeals court agreed."

"The Court reversed the appeals court but kept its ruling narrow. The justices indicated they weren't ruling on whether such a practice deprived a defendant of due process rights. 'Our own consideration of the merits of telephone practice ... is for another day,' the opinion said, 'and this case turns on the recognition that no clearly established law contrary to the state (sentencing) court's conclusion justifies' overturning the sentence".

"Click on the link below to access the full opinion. If you cannot click on the link, copy and paste it into your browser."

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-212.pdf

Full post as published by New York Supreme Court Criminal Term Library on January 15, 2008 (boomark / email).