3 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. Capital Defense Weekly, November 10, 2003

    Capital Defense NewsletterNovember 9, 2003

    If a plea is not knowing and voluntary, then due process has been denied. See McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459, 466, 22 L. Ed. 2d 418, 89 S. Ct. 1166 (1969); State v. Davis, 823 S.W.2d 217, 220 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991).To understand what is meant by a "knowing and voluntary" plea, it helps to understand the nature of a guilty plea.

  2. Plea-Withdrawal, Post-sentencing – Procedure – Pleading Requirements – Sexual Assault

    Wisconsin State Public DefenderFebruary 13, 2005

    And if that’s true, then it’s hard to see how the colloquy on the two elements, which most certainly did not address the negation of intentional conduct, was adequate on these particular facts. The guilty plea defendant must “possess[] an understanding of ‘the law in relation to the facts,’” Nash v. Israel, 707 F.3d 298, 302 (7th Cir. 1983), quotingMcCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459, 466 (1969). Not clear, in other words, just how rigorously the court applied that principle here.

  3. Capital Defense Weekly, March 4, 2002

    Capital Defense NewsletterMarch 3, 2002

    Pp.710.(b)Vonn attempts to find support for his reading by pointing beyond the Rules text to McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459which was decided when Rule 11 was relatively primitiveand the developments in that cases wake culminating in Rule 11(h)s enactment. One clearly expressed Rule 11(h) objective was to end the practice of reversing automatically for any Rule 11 error, a practice stemming from reading McCarthy expansively to require that Rule 52(a)s harmless-error provision could not be applied in Rule 11 cases.