1 00:00:00,080 --> 00:00:02,920 Speaker 1: We often think that a guilty plea ends a criminal case, 2 00:00:03,440 --> 00:00:06,360 Speaker 1: but it doesn't always do. So many defendants who plead 3 00:00:06,400 --> 00:00:10,719 Speaker 1: guilty nevertheless try to appeal their convictions on various different grounds. 4 00:00:11,320 --> 00:00:14,400 Speaker 1: The Supreme Court today heard a case about whether someone 5 00:00:14,440 --> 00:00:18,680 Speaker 1: who challenges the legal charges against him is unconstitutional but 6 00:00:18,760 --> 00:00:24,160 Speaker 1: then pleads guilty can nevertheless appealss conviction on constitutional grounds afterwards. 7 00:00:24,680 --> 00:00:27,040 Speaker 1: Here to talk with us about the case are Rory Little, 8 00:00:27,080 --> 00:00:30,240 Speaker 1: a professor at the University of California Hastings College of 9 00:00:30,240 --> 00:00:36,839 Speaker 1: the Law, and Albert Altschuler, professor of law at Northwestern University. Rory. 10 00:00:36,880 --> 00:00:39,600 Speaker 1: This is as Supreme Court arguments always are. This is 11 00:00:39,600 --> 00:00:42,879 Speaker 1: about a case that will have broad application across UH 12 00:00:43,200 --> 00:00:46,440 Speaker 1: criminal cases. But the facts of this case and the 13 00:00:46,440 --> 00:00:49,199 Speaker 1: defendant himself are a little bit atypical of what one 14 00:00:49,280 --> 00:00:51,840 Speaker 1: usually thinks of in criminal cases. Why don't you start 15 00:00:51,880 --> 00:00:54,920 Speaker 1: by telling us about what the facts are that got 16 00:00:54,960 --> 00:00:59,120 Speaker 1: this case before the court. Well, Mr klass Uh, you know, 17 00:00:59,280 --> 00:01:02,880 Speaker 1: was arrested and charged a long time ago, but his timing, 18 00:01:03,320 --> 00:01:05,680 Speaker 1: in some sense, couldn't be worse. Coming right after the 19 00:01:05,760 --> 00:01:11,920 Speaker 1: Las Vegas shooting massacre. Class parked a car full of 20 00:01:11,959 --> 00:01:17,119 Speaker 1: guns on Capitol Grounds near the US Capitol. His guns 21 00:01:17,120 --> 00:01:20,640 Speaker 1: were legally owned, but he was in a parking lot 22 00:01:21,200 --> 00:01:24,360 Speaker 1: on the federal property where he wasn't permitted to park. 23 00:01:25,000 --> 00:01:28,280 Speaker 1: And there's a special federal statute that says you can't 24 00:01:28,280 --> 00:01:33,720 Speaker 1: have readily accessible weapon anywhere on Capitol grounds. Uh. He 25 00:01:33,760 --> 00:01:36,400 Speaker 1: didn't know that. And when he got back to his car, 26 00:01:36,560 --> 00:01:38,639 Speaker 1: they were surrounding it and they had found the guns, 27 00:01:38,680 --> 00:01:42,959 Speaker 1: and and he was arrested. He ultimately pled guilty to 28 00:01:43,040 --> 00:01:46,600 Speaker 1: the charge, but he wanted to challenge this statute on 29 00:01:46,720 --> 00:01:49,760 Speaker 1: Second Amendment grounds. You know, the Second Amendment he says 30 00:01:49,800 --> 00:01:54,560 Speaker 1: should allow uh people to possess lawfully owned weapons even 31 00:01:54,560 --> 00:01:57,560 Speaker 1: if they're near the Capitol Um. When he pled guilty, 32 00:01:57,680 --> 00:02:01,160 Speaker 1: it wasn't clear actually in the dialogue between him and 33 00:02:01,160 --> 00:02:03,960 Speaker 1: the judge whether he could appeal this or not. Neither 34 00:02:04,360 --> 00:02:07,480 Speaker 1: side really got into that issue at all. So any 35 00:02:07,520 --> 00:02:10,360 Speaker 1: father an appeal, and on appeal, the court said you 36 00:02:10,400 --> 00:02:13,120 Speaker 1: can't take that appeal because you played guilty. So the 37 00:02:13,120 --> 00:02:16,960 Speaker 1: Supreme Court today was asking, when it's not perfectly clear 38 00:02:17,000 --> 00:02:19,280 Speaker 1: that something is foreclosed, does the guilty police sort of 39 00:02:19,600 --> 00:02:22,639 Speaker 1: bide default foreclosed the appeal. That's the issue in front 40 00:02:22,639 --> 00:02:25,360 Speaker 1: of them today. Now, before we get to what actually 41 00:02:25,400 --> 00:02:29,280 Speaker 1: happened today in court, what what is it that you know? 42 00:02:29,320 --> 00:02:31,400 Speaker 1: How has the court treated this kind of issue in 43 00:02:31,440 --> 00:02:37,840 Speaker 1: the past. Well, Um, most of your federal constitutional claims 44 00:02:37,880 --> 00:02:41,239 Speaker 1: are waived by a guilty plan, and you can't argue 45 00:02:41,280 --> 00:02:44,639 Speaker 1: after a guilty plea that the confession was coerced from 46 00:02:44,720 --> 00:02:49,280 Speaker 1: it earlier UH material was illegally seized. But the court 47 00:02:49,440 --> 00:02:51,880 Speaker 1: some years ago held that there were at least two 48 00:02:52,000 --> 00:02:55,720 Speaker 1: exceptions to that bool. You can still absert a claim 49 00:02:55,800 --> 00:02:59,320 Speaker 1: of double jeopardy, and you can still absert a claim 50 00:02:59,320 --> 00:03:04,120 Speaker 1: that you're a victim of discriminate story or vindictive prosecution. 51 00:03:04,560 --> 00:03:06,799 Speaker 1: And the question today was as well, does that same 52 00:03:06,880 --> 00:03:12,320 Speaker 1: principle extend to challenging the statute UH to which you 53 00:03:12,440 --> 00:03:16,960 Speaker 1: pleaded guilding right? You were talking a bit about waivers 54 00:03:17,160 --> 00:03:20,360 Speaker 1: of uh, you know, waivers of your rights as you 55 00:03:20,440 --> 00:03:24,480 Speaker 1: as you plead guilty. Can you waive everything when when 56 00:03:24,480 --> 00:03:27,280 Speaker 1: you plead guilty? And if so, how clear does it 57 00:03:27,440 --> 00:03:33,600 Speaker 1: usually have to be? Yeah? Well, absolutely you can waive everything, um. 58 00:03:33,720 --> 00:03:36,840 Speaker 1: And had the government simply asked for a clear waiver 59 00:03:37,360 --> 00:03:40,040 Speaker 1: you know, your appeal will waive your right to raise 60 00:03:40,040 --> 00:03:42,680 Speaker 1: the Second Amendment issue, then I think there wouldn't be 61 00:03:42,720 --> 00:03:45,680 Speaker 1: a case here. So the real question is what's the 62 00:03:45,760 --> 00:03:48,320 Speaker 1: default rule when nobody makes it clear, is the default 63 00:03:48,400 --> 00:03:50,440 Speaker 1: rule that you can raise it or the de default 64 00:03:50,520 --> 00:03:53,440 Speaker 1: rule that you can and and this case may have 65 00:03:53,640 --> 00:03:57,360 Speaker 1: very broad application to lots of cases, or it may 66 00:03:57,400 --> 00:04:00,800 Speaker 1: turn out to be very limited to just federal please, 67 00:04:00,960 --> 00:04:04,200 Speaker 1: and the federal criminal load is only about you know, 68 00:04:04,320 --> 00:04:07,600 Speaker 1: three to five of the criminal cases in the country, 69 00:04:07,600 --> 00:04:10,080 Speaker 1: most cases on the state side. So part of it 70 00:04:10,120 --> 00:04:11,960 Speaker 1: will be to see whether the justice and sort of 71 00:04:12,000 --> 00:04:16,039 Speaker 1: extend this to a constitutional issue of voluntariness or just 72 00:04:16,120 --> 00:04:18,159 Speaker 1: a federal rules issue of what can you do under 73 00:04:18,200 --> 00:04:23,560 Speaker 1: the wolf So al, what is so how exactly this 74 00:04:23,839 --> 00:04:28,400 Speaker 1: class framing this this case? How how is he arguing it? Well, 75 00:04:28,440 --> 00:04:32,559 Speaker 1: he's he is arguing that that this mena black ledged 76 00:04:32,600 --> 00:04:36,360 Speaker 1: doctrine that says you can't feel I've grounded like double jeopardy, 77 00:04:36,520 --> 00:04:40,800 Speaker 1: that that doctrine extends to his case. And there's a 78 00:04:40,800 --> 00:04:45,160 Speaker 1: lot of technical dispute about just how far that doctrine 79 00:04:45,560 --> 00:04:49,240 Speaker 1: uh goes. But you know, keep in mind that if 80 00:04:49,279 --> 00:04:52,640 Speaker 1: you if you've pleaded guilty, there's something that isn't a crime. 81 00:04:52,960 --> 00:04:55,880 Speaker 1: Certainly there ought to be some kind of some kind 82 00:04:55,920 --> 00:04:57,840 Speaker 1: of remedy, he are, there ought to be some way 83 00:04:57,839 --> 00:05:00,680 Speaker 1: to get you out of prison. If if it's if 84 00:05:00,760 --> 00:05:03,120 Speaker 1: you know, it's not just the it's not just the 85 00:05:03,120 --> 00:05:05,600 Speaker 1: defendants interest. It's all of our interests in seeing that 86 00:05:06,040 --> 00:05:10,120 Speaker 1: that people aren't uh punished when they're not guilty of crime, 87 00:05:10,200 --> 00:05:13,000 Speaker 1: and getting rid of statutes that keep other people from 88 00:05:13,000 --> 00:05:17,080 Speaker 1: exercising their customs all rights, you know. One of the 89 00:05:18,279 --> 00:05:22,080 Speaker 1: go ahead. Well, one of the interesting exchanges at the 90 00:05:22,120 --> 00:05:25,280 Speaker 1: court today was about the case of Loving against Virginia. 91 00:05:25,760 --> 00:05:29,200 Speaker 1: That's the case that where the court held that people 92 00:05:29,320 --> 00:05:32,479 Speaker 1: of different races have a constitutional right to marry. But 93 00:05:32,720 --> 00:05:35,640 Speaker 1: the defendants and those in the in that case had 94 00:05:36,279 --> 00:05:39,000 Speaker 1: pleaded guilty, they had mattered a bargain, and they were 95 00:05:39,040 --> 00:05:43,400 Speaker 1: banished from Virginia forever. And that the screw court decided 96 00:05:43,440 --> 00:05:46,600 Speaker 1: that case without without blinking. That's the column Wealth of 97 00:05:46,680 --> 00:05:49,520 Speaker 1: Virginia didn't even argued that they would be barred from 98 00:05:49,600 --> 00:05:55,039 Speaker 1: challenging the constitutional thetality of the statute because they pleaded guilty. Rory, 99 00:05:55,120 --> 00:05:57,760 Speaker 1: do you think if that's the way they're thinking about it, 100 00:05:57,800 --> 00:05:59,520 Speaker 1: that this is going to have a broader application. We 101 00:05:59,560 --> 00:06:02,240 Speaker 1: have got their few seconds. Well, I think it will 102 00:06:02,279 --> 00:06:05,320 Speaker 1: have a broad application. Um. You know, the other interest 103 00:06:05,400 --> 00:06:08,760 Speaker 1: is finality. Anybody could challenge his statute. And in fact, 104 00:06:08,760 --> 00:06:11,440 Speaker 1: that District court judge said there was no Second Amendment 105 00:06:11,480 --> 00:06:14,720 Speaker 1: problem here at all. So if we want finality, we've 106 00:06:14,720 --> 00:06:16,960 Speaker 1: got to give guilty please sort of a final meaning. 107 00:06:17,800 --> 00:06:19,839 Speaker 1: It'll just depend on whether they think it was clear 108 00:06:19,920 --> 00:06:22,160 Speaker 1: here or not. I don't think it was clear. We 109 00:06:22,200 --> 00:06:25,240 Speaker 1: are talking with al alti Or, a professor of law 110 00:06:25,279 --> 00:06:30,560 Speaker 1: at Northwestern University, and Rory Little, a professor at Hastings 111 00:06:30,600 --> 00:06:33,040 Speaker 1: College of the Law, about a Supreme Court case that 112 00:06:33,120 --> 00:06:35,600 Speaker 1: was heard today. The court heard argument on a case 113 00:06:35,680 --> 00:06:38,920 Speaker 1: involving a man who was arrested for having guns in 114 00:06:38,960 --> 00:06:41,599 Speaker 1: his car when he on the close to the United 115 00:06:41,600 --> 00:06:45,120 Speaker 1: States Capital, which under federal law you're not allowed to do. Uh. 116 00:06:45,120 --> 00:06:48,000 Speaker 1: He claimed it's an unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, and 117 00:06:48,520 --> 00:06:50,760 Speaker 1: but then pled guilty when he lost that argument. He 118 00:06:50,800 --> 00:06:54,159 Speaker 1: now wants to be able to challenge the constitutionality of 119 00:06:54,160 --> 00:06:58,240 Speaker 1: the law on appealed despite his guilty plea. Al, you 120 00:06:58,279 --> 00:07:01,640 Speaker 1: were in court today, Um, what how did the justices 121 00:07:01,720 --> 00:07:06,679 Speaker 1: react to the arguments? Well, it was a very technical argument, 122 00:07:07,000 --> 00:07:10,800 Speaker 1: and the council on both sides were asked very tough questions. 123 00:07:10,840 --> 00:07:14,800 Speaker 1: I think that the most surprising moment was Justice course 124 00:07:14,880 --> 00:07:19,800 Speaker 1: as being very hard on the government's lawyer UH and 125 00:07:19,800 --> 00:07:23,920 Speaker 1: and arguing that there was a historic understanding that a 126 00:07:24,000 --> 00:07:28,400 Speaker 1: guilty plea did not preclude UH arguing on appeal of 127 00:07:28,480 --> 00:07:32,640 Speaker 1: the statute was unconstitutional. So I decided a lot of 128 00:07:32,680 --> 00:07:36,760 Speaker 1: you know, cases going back to the early nineteenth century 129 00:07:37,000 --> 00:07:40,000 Speaker 1: on that on that subject. So that that was that 130 00:07:40,080 --> 00:07:44,120 Speaker 1: was a bit of a surprise. UM. I thought most 131 00:07:44,160 --> 00:07:46,720 Speaker 1: of the most of the judgment, well, you know, I 132 00:07:46,760 --> 00:07:50,200 Speaker 1: think the the so called liberals on the court, the 133 00:07:50,440 --> 00:07:55,120 Speaker 1: the ones appointed by Democrats UH mostly UH favored the 134 00:07:55,200 --> 00:07:58,280 Speaker 1: UH dependence argument that he could appeal. You had the 135 00:07:58,320 --> 00:08:01,760 Speaker 1: sense that the most of the most of the foe 136 00:08:01,800 --> 00:08:05,720 Speaker 1: called conservatives were leading the the other way, although it 137 00:08:05,800 --> 00:08:11,200 Speaker 1: wasn't entirely clear glory this this happens sometimes with criminal 138 00:08:11,240 --> 00:08:14,160 Speaker 1: cases before the court doesn't always quite break down in 139 00:08:14,200 --> 00:08:18,040 Speaker 1: the normal roster of judges on the left and the right, 140 00:08:18,120 --> 00:08:22,120 Speaker 1: does it well, it doesn't, although you know, let's talk, 141 00:08:22,280 --> 00:08:25,320 Speaker 1: let's be clear about the politics here. The second Amendment 142 00:08:25,440 --> 00:08:29,160 Speaker 1: argument is one that conservatives have embraced. You know, if 143 00:08:29,160 --> 00:08:33,040 Speaker 1: this were another constitutional right, it might not be so 144 00:08:33,960 --> 00:08:37,800 Speaker 1: likely that gorsts would suddenly find uh that the defendants 145 00:08:37,800 --> 00:08:41,160 Speaker 1: position is sympathetic. Justice Gorsage is not a sympathetic guy 146 00:08:41,240 --> 00:08:44,520 Speaker 1: to equivalent defendants generally. But the Second Amendment gun thing 147 00:08:45,080 --> 00:08:49,200 Speaker 1: kind of overwhelmed. Maybe they're there other political instincts, and 148 00:08:49,240 --> 00:08:51,760 Speaker 1: I think we have to be realistic about that this 149 00:08:51,760 --> 00:08:54,200 Speaker 1: this is the right argument for the conservative court that 150 00:08:54,240 --> 00:08:58,000 Speaker 1: we have the other point that's important here and the 151 00:08:58,320 --> 00:09:01,040 Speaker 1: telescope bat a little bit. This is the sixth case 152 00:09:01,160 --> 00:09:03,720 Speaker 1: they have heard argument in this week. It's the last 153 00:09:03,760 --> 00:09:06,280 Speaker 1: of six. All of the cases they heard this week 154 00:09:06,320 --> 00:09:09,600 Speaker 1: are really big important cases having to do with immigration 155 00:09:09,720 --> 00:09:14,480 Speaker 1: and labor law and redistricting of jerrymandering. Uh. You know, 156 00:09:14,520 --> 00:09:16,720 Speaker 1: there's a little bit of fatigue on a case like this. 157 00:09:17,320 --> 00:09:20,080 Speaker 1: It's not it's not the most they're shattering case on 158 00:09:20,120 --> 00:09:23,200 Speaker 1: the docket. Uh, And so it tends to sort of 159 00:09:23,280 --> 00:09:25,880 Speaker 1: I think the justices get a little technical because they're 160 00:09:25,880 --> 00:09:29,840 Speaker 1: a little bit tired. Actually, well, al um, putting aside 161 00:09:29,840 --> 00:09:32,160 Speaker 1: their fatigue for the moment, do you do you think 162 00:09:32,160 --> 00:09:35,600 Speaker 1: that the Second Amendment angle on this shaped the way 163 00:09:35,640 --> 00:09:40,000 Speaker 1: that the Court approached the arguments today. Certainly, not explicitly. 164 00:09:40,040 --> 00:09:42,600 Speaker 1: I mean, that was barely mentioned, you know. I was 165 00:09:42,640 --> 00:09:45,840 Speaker 1: mentioned by the Council simply in describing the facts of 166 00:09:45,880 --> 00:09:48,960 Speaker 1: the case. That was not mentioned by any of the justices, 167 00:09:49,040 --> 00:09:52,800 Speaker 1: if I remember correctly. So I don't. I don't think 168 00:09:52,840 --> 00:09:56,080 Speaker 1: it was a major theme. Although I suppose it does 169 00:09:56,120 --> 00:09:58,960 Speaker 1: color color of view of the case, it's not. I 170 00:09:59,000 --> 00:10:04,760 Speaker 1: don't think the defendant, in fact, hasn't terribly attractive Second 171 00:10:04,760 --> 00:10:08,480 Speaker 1: Amendment argument that would appeal to even most of the 172 00:10:08,520 --> 00:10:12,800 Speaker 1: conservative justices. His his due process arguments a little stronger. 173 00:10:12,840 --> 00:10:14,880 Speaker 1: He says there was no notice that he wasn't that 174 00:10:15,200 --> 00:10:18,120 Speaker 1: this was a place he wasn't supposed to park, and 175 00:10:18,200 --> 00:10:20,600 Speaker 1: no notice that he wasn't supposed to have gotten So 176 00:10:20,600 --> 00:10:24,720 Speaker 1: so he says he got fair notice. Well, Rory, do 177 00:10:24,760 --> 00:10:27,920 Speaker 1: you think that, um, there's some argument here? Is there 178 00:10:27,920 --> 00:10:31,360 Speaker 1: an argument here that it's not really a voluntary plea 179 00:10:31,559 --> 00:10:35,840 Speaker 1: if it's not entirely clear whether he waived his constitutional 180 00:10:35,880 --> 00:10:40,120 Speaker 1: argument for appeal? Well, yeah, Michael, that's exactly right. I mean, 181 00:10:40,400 --> 00:10:43,360 Speaker 1: it's kind of a fallback argument for for Mr. Class. 182 00:10:43,520 --> 00:10:46,240 Speaker 1: His argument is, look, even if a guilty plea would 183 00:10:46,280 --> 00:10:51,040 Speaker 1: normally waive issues like this. My guilty plea in particular 184 00:10:51,120 --> 00:10:54,240 Speaker 1: was unclear. The judge was a little bit equivocal, a 185 00:10:54,240 --> 00:10:57,959 Speaker 1: little bit unclear about what was being waived and what wasn't. Um, 186 00:10:58,040 --> 00:11:00,880 Speaker 1: that's probably an issue that the court would not decide, 187 00:11:00,920 --> 00:11:03,360 Speaker 1: but would rather remand the case back to the lower 188 00:11:03,360 --> 00:11:06,200 Speaker 1: court to say, well, now that we've decided the default rule, 189 00:11:06,679 --> 00:11:09,080 Speaker 1: you get to decide whether this guy's plea in particular 190 00:11:09,240 --> 00:11:11,560 Speaker 1: is clear or not. Voluntary nous that is a very 191 00:11:11,600 --> 00:11:14,160 Speaker 1: important thing. So it seems to me it's entirely possible 192 00:11:14,200 --> 00:11:17,440 Speaker 1: they'll say, hey, it's an important constitutional right. That's an 193 00:11:17,480 --> 00:11:20,760 Speaker 1: issue here. And when you're waving an appeal about that 194 00:11:20,800 --> 00:11:23,920 Speaker 1: sort of thing, you know, loving in Virginia, Uh, let's 195 00:11:23,960 --> 00:11:27,040 Speaker 1: make sure it's clear. Let's make double sure it's clear. Uh. 196 00:11:27,160 --> 00:11:29,720 Speaker 1: That may be their rule. Uh, you know, and Loving 197 00:11:29,760 --> 00:11:32,120 Speaker 1: it was certainly clear. I think to everybody that the 198 00:11:32,160 --> 00:11:35,160 Speaker 1: issue was going to be taken up on appeal. Uh here, 199 00:11:35,200 --> 00:11:36,800 Speaker 1: I think it wasn't clear at all. I think the 200 00:11:36,800 --> 00:11:38,720 Speaker 1: government thought this was the end of it, and and 201 00:11:38,760 --> 00:11:41,600 Speaker 1: they really feel cheated in some sense that this guy 202 00:11:41,640 --> 00:11:45,679 Speaker 1: pled guilty after after fleeing and they had to rearrest 203 00:11:45,800 --> 00:11:48,120 Speaker 1: him and get him to plead guilty. That he's still 204 00:11:48,120 --> 00:11:49,760 Speaker 1: trying to do this on appeal. I think the government 205 00:11:49,760 --> 00:11:52,719 Speaker 1: feels like this is really not the right case for that. Well, 206 00:11:52,800 --> 00:11:55,480 Speaker 1: in about fifteen seconds, do you have any sense from 207 00:11:55,520 --> 00:11:58,640 Speaker 1: the court today which side is going to prevail? I 208 00:11:58,720 --> 00:12:01,240 Speaker 1: don't agree. I think to say they is actually the 209 00:12:01,280 --> 00:12:05,840 Speaker 1: answer very hard questions of of both sides. Uh, And 210 00:12:06,040 --> 00:12:08,400 Speaker 1: I don't think. I don't think it's as claimed. I 211 00:12:09,400 --> 00:12:11,920 Speaker 1: suspect the court's going to be divided, all right. Well, 212 00:12:11,920 --> 00:12:15,199 Speaker 1: our thanks to al Chiller, professor of Law at Northwestern University, 213 00:12:15,240 --> 00:12:17,800 Speaker 1: and Rory Little, professor at Hastings College of Law, for 214 00:12:17,880 --> 00:12:19,400 Speaker 1: being here on Bloomberg Law Today.