United States v. Harrison, No. 19-2234 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
The Eighth Circuit vacated defendant's sentence and remanded for resentencing before a different judge. Defendant alleged that, absent the district court's advice, he likely would have accepted the government's offer and received a lighter sentence. The government concedes that the district court plainly crossed the line as soon as it suggested, with a plea deal still on the table, that defendant could do better if he went to trial.
The court held that there is a reasonable probability that defendant would have pleaded guilty but for the district judge's comments at the plea proceedings. In light of the circumstances, the court determined that the remedy that best balances the competing objectives is vacating defendant's sentence and remanding for resentencing before a different judge.
Court Description: [Stras, Author,with Kelly and Wollman, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. There is a reasonable probability that defendant would have pleaded guilty but for the court's comments at the plea proceedings; under the circumstances, the remedy that best balances the competing interests is vacating defendant's sentence and remanding the matter for resentencing before a different judge.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.