Skip to main content

Sharing plea offers

Missouri v. Frye

Updated Oct 18, 2026

In brief

The Court wiped out the Missouri appeals court’s ruling and sent the case back, so Frye still must prove his claim to receive relief.

Where it stands
Decided

Decided 5-4 · March 21, 2012 · Opinion by Justice Kennedy

What it’s about
Frye said his lawyer failed to tell him about a formal plea offer before he pleaded guilty.
Who it affects
The ruling recognizes a claim for defendants whose lawyers failed to pass along expired or rejected formal offers, but relief depends on proof that the lost deal would have gone through.

Summary: written with AI from the case record.

Illustration for Missouri v. Frye
Conceptual illustration · AI-generated

What it's about

The Court ruled lawyers generally must communicate formal offers, even if they expire or are rejected, and wiped out the Missouri appeals court’s ruling and sent the case back (vacated and remanded); to obtain relief, Frye must show a reasonable chance he would have accepted the offer and that prosecutors and a court empowered by state law would have allowed the plea.

Frye’s claim concerned a formal plea offer with a fixed expiration date.

The dispute asked whether a valid guilty plea still permits a claim that a lawyer’s failure to pass along an offer cost the defendant a better deal.

Question presented

Can a defendant who validly pleads guilty assert a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel by alleging that, but for counsel's error in failing to communicate a plea offer, he would have pleaded guilty with more favorable terms?

What the Court decided

Holding

1. The Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel extends to the consideration of plea offers that lapse or are rejected. That right applies to “all ‘critical’ stages of the criminal proceedings.” Montejo v. Louisiana, 556 U. S. 778, 786. Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U. S. 52, established that Strickland’s two-part test governs ineffective - assistance claims in the plea bargain context. There, the defendant had alleged that his counsel had given him inadequate advice about his plea, but he failed to show that he would have proceeded to trial had he received the proper advice. 474 U. S., at 60. 2. As a general rule, defense counsel has the duty to communicate formal prosecution offers to accept a plea on terms and conditions that may be favorable to the accused. Any exceptions to this rule need not be addressed here, for the offer was a formal one with a fixed expiration date. Standards for prompt communication and consultation recommended by the American Bar Association and adopted by numerous state and federal courts, though not determinative, serve as important guides. The prosecution and trial courts may adopt measures to help ensure against late, frivolous, or fabricated claims. First, a formal offer’s terms and processing can be documented. 3. To show prejudice where a plea offer has lapsed or been rejected because of counsel’s deficient performance, defendants must demonstrate a reasonable probability both that they would have accepted the more favorable plea offer had they been afforded effective assistance of counsel and that the plea would have been entered without the prosecution’s canceling it or the trial court’s refusing to accept it, if they had the authority to exercise that discretion under state law. 4. 311 S. W. 3d 350, vacated and remanded.

Result
Vacated

The Court's reasoning

The Court said the right to effective legal help covers offers that expire or are rejected, and lawyers generally must tell clients about formal offers. A defendant seeking relief must show a reasonable chance they would have accepted and that prosecutors or a court with authority under state law would have allowed the plea.

The vote

  • Joined the judgment
  • Dissented
  • Wrote an opinion
Majority · 5joined the Court's opinion
  1. Breyer
  2. Kagan
  3. Kennedywrote the opinion
  4. Ginsburg
  5. Sotomayor
Dissenting · 4disagreed with the result
  1. Thomas
  2. Scaliawrote the dissent
  3. Roberts
  4. Alito
5 justices joined the judgment, 4 dissented.

From the opinions

“Here it can be said not only that the process was fair, but that the defendant acknowledged the correctness of his conviction.”

— Justice Scalia(dissent)

What's next

The case goes back to the lower court, which must apply the Court’s test to decide whether Frye qualifies for relief.

Documents

2

Opinions

  • Frye

    Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, Alito

Audio

View the full docket on supremecourt.gov

Docket activity

10
  • New analysis added

    Oct 18, 2026 · Court records

  • AI analysis generated: Case Briefing

    Oct 18, 2026 · Generated

  • New analysis added

    Oct 18, 2026 · Court records

  • AI analysis generated: Impact Analysis

    Oct 18, 2026 · Generated

  • AI analysis generated: Opinion Summary

    Oct 18, 2026 · Generated

Show 5 more
  • AI analysis generated: Decision Record

    Oct 18, 2026 · Generated

  • Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata

    Oct 18, 2026 · Court records

  • Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata

    Oct 17, 2026 · Court records

  • Audio Recording added: Oral Arguments - Frye

    Oct 30, 2014 · Court records

  • Opinion added: Frye

    Mar 21, 2012 · Court records

Sources

Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.

Checked Oct 18, 2026Methodology

Court records and filings

Reporting and analysis