Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Judicial Skepticism Mounts Over the Use and Reach of Appellate Waivers
A defendant who pleads guilty is usually required to waive a host of constitutional and statutory rights, such as the right to a jury trial, the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, the right to testify and present evidence. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b). By necessity, a defendant who wishes to gain the potential sentencing benefits of pleading guilty must waive these trial rights. However, many defendants are also required to waive their right to appeal in order to receive a favorable plea agreement with the government. In federal court, these agreements typically require the waiver of the right to appeal when the sentence is within or below an agreed-upon range. In addition, only with the consent of the government and the court may a defendant enter a conditional plea in federal court and thereby reserve the right to appeal an adverse determination of a pretrial motion (such as a suppression motion or a motion in limine). Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(a)(2).
Given that the overwhelming majority of criminal cases are resolved by guilty plea, the frequent use of appellate waivers limits the ability of a defendant to get a “second look” for his case. This shifts decision-making power from the courts to the prosecutors, who can decide when to insist on an appellate waiver. Appellate waivers also inhibit the development of the law by cutting off the flow of cases to the appellate courts. Without fewer appeals, there are fewer appellate decisions in areas ranging from search-and-seizure law to sentencing procedure.
In recent years, there has been some pushback by appellate courts against the broad use of waivers. To be sure, one or two feathers do not make a bird, and appellate waivers are still being enforced in the vast majority of cases. But it does seem as if a trend is developing in this area, as reflected by the cases discussed in this article. Here are some themes from these recent decisions that defense counsel might consider when negotiating guilty pleas and deciding whether or not to appeal notwithstanding the existence of an appellate waiver.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?