October Term 2011 · Docket 10-209

Does a rejected plea bargain require a new trial if counsel gave bad advice?

Anthony Cooper claims his lawyer gave bad advice. He now serves a longer sentence than the rejected deal offered.

Official caption
Lafler v. Cooper
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Cooper's lawyer argued the bad advice caused a much longer prison term.

    The state's lawyer argued the trial itself was fair and reliable.

    The state's lawyer argued a new trial is the standard remedy for bad advice.

    Justice Kagan questioned why a longer sentence is not a different outcome.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

Cooper rejected a plea deal after his lawyer advised him to. He lost at trial and received a harsher sentence. He argues this bad advice violated his rights. The state argues the trial itself was fair and reliable.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on October 31, 2011.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Cooper wants a remedy for the longer sentence he received after rejecting the plea deal.

The state wants the conviction to stand because the trial process was reliable.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Cooper argues bad advice caused a significantly longer prison term, which is a clear harm.

The state argues the right to effective counsel only protects the reliability of the trial itself.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Scalia asked if being a poor negotiator constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel.

Justice Kagan asked how a longer sentence is not a different outcome if the advice was bad.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines the scope of the right to effective counsel during plea negotiations. It determines whether a longer sentence from a rejected deal counts as legal harm. The outcome shapes how courts evaluate claims of bad legal advice in criminal cases.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON