The Connecticut Law Tribune’s Editorial Board on May 14, 2012, in an editorial that is surprisingly disingenuous, criticized the Office of the Chief State’s Attorney for filing an amicus brief in the U.S.Supreme Court in the cases of Missouri v. Frye and Lafler v. Cooper. In the amicus brief, which was joined by 28 other states, the office argued, as did the U.S. Department of Justice and the National District Attorneys Association, that a defendant who is convicted after either a fair trial or a knowing and voluntary guilty plea is not entitled under the U.S. Constitution to have his conviction vacated on the ground that his attorney either failed to inform him of, or advise him to accept, a plea offer that was more favorable than the sentence ultimately imposed.
The Editorial Board’s criticism misperceives, or deliberately misstates, the overall import of the Frye and Lafler decisions, the role of attorneys in our adversary system, and the responsibility that this office has to the people of the State of Connecticut.
