Should a district court grant a pre-sentencing motion to withdraw a guilty plea if that plea was made after an initial trial that ended with a hung jury and after counsel pressured the individual to take a plea?

Petitioner Curtis Dewayne Miller pleaded guilty after a jury could not decide whether he was guilty or not in an initial trial and the Government continued to pursue charges at a second trial. Throughout district court proceedings, Miller’s counsel encouraged Miller to plead guilty and warned him that the district court and Government had it out for him. This pressure led Miller to plead guilty after the first day of his second trial. When Miller tried to rescind his plea, the district court erroneously denied his motion and proceeded to impose a 320-month sentence. In addition to erroneously denying Miller’s motion, the decision to put Miller behind bars for the next twenty-six years was based on an error in determining Miller’s offense level. When Miller moved to withdraw his guilty plea, the district court interpreted the Bashara factors in a way that made it impossible for Miller—or any defendant—to withdraw his plea. The district court hardly considered circumstances leading to the plea and leaned on general conclusions about other factors that mischaracterized Miller’s experience, allowed for easy denial of Miller’s motion and prevented Miller from presenting his innocence to a jury. 2 On appeal, Miller challenged the district court’s interpretation of the Bashara factors and its decision to deny his motion. The Sixth Circuit, however, affirmed the district court’s decision. It similarly conflated multiple factors to overcome the small time frame between Miller’s plea and his request to withdraw that plea. Problems inherent in the Sixth Circuit’s decision are representative of a wider problem that currently exists across Circuit Courts of Appeal in the United States. No Circuit employs the same standard for reviewing motions to withdraw guilty pleas. Some Circuits provide only three or four factors to consider and even weigh the factors based on importance, but other Circuits—including the Sixth—provide six or seven nonexhaustive factors. Over-complicating this inquiry provides district courts with almost unfettered discretion to deny any withdrawal motion. This sets defendants up for failure. It also leads to conflicting results among circuits and a lack of direction within the criminal justice system. The questions presented is thus: Should a district court grant a pre-sentencing motion to withdraw a guilty plea if that plea was made after an initial trial that ended with a hung jury and after counsel pressured the individual to take a plea? 3 PARTIES TO PROCEEDINGS Curtis Dewayne Miller and the United States of America are the only parties to this proceeding.