ARAVE v. HOFFMAN
On appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Who's Who?
Maxwell Hoffman is the prisoner. Avron J. Arave is the warden at his prison.
How did this case make it to the Supreme Court of the United States?
Mr. Hoffman was convicted of murder and sentenced to death in Idaho. Perhaps, he could have avoided the death sentence if only he'd had a better lawyer. Mr. Hoffman argued that his sentence was unfair to the Idaho courts. He lost. He then petitioned in Federal District Court for Idaho to resentence him.
The federal District Court agreed with him, he had a lousy lawyer. The District Court said that the lawyer was bad in two respects:
- the lawyer gave bad advice to Mr. Hoffman before Mr. Hoffman's trial as he tried to plea bargain with the government, and
- the lawyer was a lousy advocate during the "sentencing phase" of Mr. Hoffman's trial (after he had been convicted).
It was now the state of Idaho's turn to appeal. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court only on the second issue. The Ninth Circuit agreed that Mr. Hoffman's lawyer had done a bad job during sentencing. But the Ninth Circuit disagreed with the District Court on the other point, the lawyer had not been that bad during the plea-bargaining phase that happened before the trial.
Idaho, still a loser, appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
Who won?
Nobody.
Who lost?
Nobody.
Did the Ninth Circuit get reversed, yet again?
Nope.
What happened?
The Supreme Court issued a two-page per curiam decision that said the issue was moot.
What's moot?
Moot means there is no longer a controversy for the court to decide. The Supreme Court is undoubtedly powerful, but it has (at least) one weakness. (No, it's not kryptonite.) The Supreme Court cannot decide anything without a lawsuit so contentious that the two sides will spend significant quantities of money and time quarreling in lower courts. If, at any time, the parties no longer disagree, the case is moot. There is no reason to go on, and no reason for the Supreme Court to decide the case.
How did this issue become moot?
Originally Idaho requested that the Supreme Court review both parts of the Ninth Circuit's decision. But, for some reason, Idaho decided not to fight the portion of the Ninth Circuit opinion that it had lost. Idaho withdrew its claim. At that point Mr. Hoffman, having won that the issue that gave him a resentencing order in front of the Ninth Circuit, chose not to fight the issue that he had lost - Mr. Hoffman made a motion (a request) that the pretrial bargaining issue be dismissed.
The Supreme Court, now faced with agreement from both of the parties, had to dismiss the case. The issue was moot.
Are you disappointed?
Conflicted is a better word. Potentially, this case would could have further clarified this issue: when are lawyers so lousy that their murdering clients would be better off without them?
On the other hand, the opinion was short. Short opinions lead to short entries on clarinet.woodwinds.com.
What is the most lawyerly sentence?
"The State therefore agrees that the instant motion to vacate and dismiss with prejudice moots Hoffman's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel during plea negotiations and asks that the motion be granted."
An "instant motion" sounds like you could mix it with water to get a motion. A "motion to vacate" sounds like a request to leave the building. This sentence is lawyer speak for: "Idaho agrees with Mr. Hoffman, so, the Supreme Court has nothing to decide."