## Facts

- Robert M. Brady was indicted in federal court for kidnapping under 18 U.S.C. § 1201(a), which authorized a possible death sentence if a jury recommended it.
- Brady initially pleaded not guilty.
- After learning a codefendant had confessed, would plead guilty, and would testify against him, Brady changed his plea to guilty.
- The trial judge questioned Brady (with counsel present) about the voluntariness of the plea and accepted it.
- Brady received a 50-year sentence, later reduced to 30 years.
- Years later, Brady sought post-conviction relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, alleging his plea was coerced by the statute’s death-penalty feature, by counsel’s pressure, and by alleged promises regarding sentencing and clemency, and that the plea process failed to satisfy Rule 11.
- After an evidentiary hearing, the district court found the plea was voluntary and knowing, counsel had not improperly pressured Brady, and no promises were made; the Tenth Circuit affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether the invalidation of § 1201(a)’s death-penalty provision in *United States v. Jackson* required setting aside guilty pleas entered under § 1201(a).
2. Whether a guilty plea is involuntary under the Fifth Amendment when entered to avoid a possible death sentence under a statutory provision later held unconstitutional in part.
3. Whether Brady’s plea was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent on this record.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment.
- *Jackson* did not establish that all guilty pleas influenced by fear of a possible death sentence are involuntary, nor did it invalidate such pleas.
- A plea is not invalid merely because it was entered to avoid the possibility of the death penalty.
- Brady’s plea was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent because he was advised by competent counsel and was fully aware of the direct consequences when he pleaded guilty.
- A defendant’s failure to anticipate later legal developments does not, by itself, undermine the reliability of a prior guilty plea.

## Legal Principles

- A guilty plea is constitutionally valid only if it is voluntary, knowing, and intelligent, made by a defendant fully aware of the direct consequences.
- Unconstitutional coercion involves overbearing the defendant’s will (e.g., threats or coercive conduct); the existence of a harsher potential sentence after trial, without more, does not make a plea involuntary.
- A statutory scheme later held unconstitutional in part does not automatically render earlier guilty pleas invalid; the plea’s validity turns on voluntariness and informed choice at the time it was entered.
- A defendant cannot withdraw a plea solely because later decisions change the perceived strength of the government’s case or the maximum punishment thought applicable when the plea was made.

## Conclusion

The Court held that Brady’s guilty plea remained valid despite the later partial invalidation of the kidnapping statute’s death-penalty provision, because the plea was entered with competent counsel and with full awareness of its direct consequences, and was not the product of unconstitutional coercion.


Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (1970)