# Suppose someone pleads guilty to a crime for acts which are later declared legal **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [May 7, 2020, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suppose-someone-pleads-guilty-to-a-crime-for-acts-which-are-later-declared-legal/853332 "2020-05-07T14:51:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2020, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suppose-someone-pleads-guilty-to-a-crime-for-acts-which-are-later-declared-legal/853332/1 "2020-05-07T14:51:05Z")
There are frequently open questions as to whether certain actions are or are not illegal, as in: whether they fit the language and meaning of some criminal statute. What I’m wondering is what happens to someone who pleaded guilty to a crime but it’s later found (in an unrelated case) that such acts don’t fit the crime. Meaning, suppose as part of the plea deal, the defendant agrees that he committed Acts A, B, & C, and on that basis is guilty of mopery. Now, in an unrelated case, a completely different defendant goes before the Supreme Court which rules that Acts A, B, & C are not mopery under the law, and that other defendant beats the rap on that basis. Where does that leave the first defendant? Can they ask their judge to just throw out their plea and verdict? Can they at least use it as the basis for an appeal despite their guilty plea? ---
**Author:** ![racer72](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/racer72/32/3075_2.png) [@racer72](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/racer72)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2020, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suppose-someone-pleads-guilty-to-a-crime-for-acts-which-are-later-declared-legal/853332/2 "2020-05-07T15:09:45Z")
A lot of folks spent time in prison for marijuana possession even after is was decriminalized. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2020, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suppose-someone-pleads-guilty-to-a-crime-for-acts-which-are-later-declared-legal/853332/3 "2020-05-07T15:48:00Z")
> [@racer72](#): > > A lot of folks spent time in prison for marijuana possession even after is was decriminalized. But that’s not quite what the OP is asking about, though. I think he is asking about acts that are later considered by the Supreme Court to have never been a crime to begin with. A sort of retroactive re-definition. With the marijuana, it’s a case of “It was a crime when you committed it, and you are still guilty, since you were in the illegal timeframe.” ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2020, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suppose-someone-pleads-guilty-to-a-crime-for-acts-which-are-later-declared-legal/853332/4 "2020-05-07T15:53:38Z")
@ the OP: IANAL, but my guess is that the 1st defendant would get to successfully beat his charges, and if he’s in prison, he’d be freed. ---
**Author:** ![Andy\_L](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c67d28/32.png) [@Andy\_L](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Andy_L)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2020, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suppose-someone-pleads-guilty-to-a-crime-for-acts-which-are-later-declared-legal/853332/5 "2020-05-07T16:00:06Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > But that’s not quite what the OP is asking about, though. I think he is asking about acts that are later considered by the Supreme Court to have never been a crime to begin with. A sort of retroactive re-definition. > > With the marijuana, it’s a case of “It was a crime when you committed it, and you are still guilty, since you were in the illegal timeframe.” Lawrence v Texas [Lawrence v. Texas - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas) ruled that sodomy laws were unconstitutional (up until then, such offenses were felonies in some states). I don’t know if people already in prison for overthrown laws were then released (but I doubt it). I also don’t know people who were forbidden from voting due to such a felony on their records got their right to vote (and other rights) restored - but tend to doubt it. ---
**Author:** ![Alley\_Dweller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alley_dweller/32/430_2.png) [@Alley\_Dweller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alley_Dweller)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2020, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suppose-someone-pleads-guilty-to-a-crime-for-acts-which-are-later-declared-legal/853332/6 "2020-05-07T16:14:08Z")
Wouldn’t it depend on whether the original defendant raised the issue at his trial? In general, doesn’t failure to raise a defense or objection constitute waiver of the defense or objection? > [@](#): > > suppose as part of the plea deal, the defendant agrees that he committed Acts A, B, & C, and on that basis is guilty of mopery. And if the defendant explictly concedes that A, B, and C constitutes mopery, doesn’t that just end the issue right there? It would be different if the court had found him guilty of mopery despite his contentions that A, B, and C didn’t constitute mopery. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2020, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suppose-someone-pleads-guilty-to-a-crime-for-acts-which-are-later-declared-legal/853332/7 "2020-05-07T16:15:59Z")
> [@Alley\_Dweller](#): > > Wouldn’t it depend on whether the original defendant raised the issue at his trial? > > In general, doesn’t failure to raise a defense or objection constitute waiver of the defense or objection? Well, they couldn’t raise it as a defense if the defense didn’t exist yet. At the time of the 1st defendant’s trial, the Supreme Court would not have yet ruled that Acts A, B and C did not constitute mopery. Although the OP says “plea deal” so there presumably wouldn’t even be a trial at all. ---
**Author:** ![Alley\_Dweller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alley_dweller/32/430_2.png) [@Alley\_Dweller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alley_Dweller)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2020, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suppose-someone-pleads-guilty-to-a-crime-for-acts-which-are-later-declared-legal/853332/8 "2020-05-07T16:24:21Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > Well, they couldn’t raise it as a defense if the defense didn’t exist yet… Why not? Obviously the second defendant (the one that took the case before the Supreme Court) did. Or are you thinking that the Supreme Court ruled _sua sponte_ that A, B, and C did not constitute mopery? ---
**Author:** ![Alley\_Dweller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alley_dweller/32/430_2.png) [@Alley\_Dweller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alley_Dweller)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2020, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suppose-someone-pleads-guilty-to-a-crime-for-acts-which-are-later-declared-legal/853332/9 "2020-05-07T16:28:36Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > Although the OP says “plea deal” so there presumably wouldn’t even be a trial at all. I believe that when there is a plea deal, the parties still have to go before a judge and that the defendant has to say “I plead guilty to these charges” and that constitutes their trial. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2020, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suppose-someone-pleads-guilty-to-a-crime-for-acts-which-are-later-declared-legal/853332/10 "2020-05-07T16:48:40Z")
> [@Alley\_Dweller](#): > > Wouldn’t it depend on whether the original defendant raised the issue at his trial? > > In general, doesn’t failure to raise a defense or objection constitute waiver of the defense or objection? I would have thought the defendant can waive a right, but can’t create an invalid legal principle or law via waiver. > [@](#): > > And if the defendant explictly concedes that A, B, and C constitutes mopery, doesn’t that just end the issue right there? Along the lines of the above, the defendant doesn’t outrank the US Supreme Court on this. If the defendant explicitly concedes that A, B, & C constitute mopery but the USSC asserts that it doesn’t, then in the eyes of the law it doesn’t. [FWIW, what got me to be thinking about it is the USSC today unanimously dismissing charges against two remaining defendants in the Bridgegate scandal based on the assertion that the acts they were tried for were not illegal - there is a third defendant who already pleaded guilty. That guy was sentenced to probation, so I don’t know if this impacts him, and for all I know the exact facts and legal issues may have been different as applied to him. But this is the general circumstance that I’m contemplating.] ---
**Author:** ![Falchion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Falchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falchion)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2020, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suppose-someone-pleads-guilty-to-a-crime-for-acts-which-are-later-declared-legal/853332/11 "2020-05-07T16:51:38Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > There are frequently open questions as to whether certain actions are or are not illegal, as in: whether they fit the language and meaning of some criminal statute. What I’m wondering is what happens to someone who pleaded guilty to a crime but it’s later found (in an unrelated case) that such acts don’t fit the crime. > > Meaning, suppose as part of the plea deal, the defendant agrees that he committed Acts A, B, & C, and on that basis is guilty of mopery. Now, in an unrelated case, a completely different defendant goes before the Supreme Court which rules that Acts A, B, & C are not mopery under the law, and that other defendant beats the rap on that basis. Where does that leave the first defendant? > > Can they ask their judge to just throw out their plea and verdict? Can they at least use it as the basis for an appeal despite their guilty plea? My understanding is that the typical remedy would filing for a writ of habeas corpus (either state or federal) arguing that their detention is unlawful. The procedures surrounding such petitions are bizarrely complicated, but I would view this as a form of an “actual innocence” claim – because of the intervening change in the interpretation of the law, no crime was actually committed. That said, I believe that most courts would require that there be a _new_ interpretation (preferably one that overruled existing binding precedent). I don’t think you’re likely to success on the argument that you might have prevailed on direct appeal because there was an “open” question.