# Sylvia A. Lipson v. United States

> Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · November 7, 2000 · 233 F.3d 942

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9493633

## Case

- **Full name:** Sylvia A. LIPSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
- **Decided:** November 7, 2000
- **Citations:** 233 F.3d 942; 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 27854; 2000 WL 1665056
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Bauer
- **Judges:** Bauer, Rovner, Wood
- **Cited by:** 10 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9493633

## Opinion text

BAUER, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. The return of this case for purposes of deciding whether the defendant would have been amenable to a “plea agreement” (and, I take it, whether the prosecution would have even entertained such an agreement), or what bargaining chips the defendant had to expend, adds a totally new dimension to what a trial judge should do to avoid just this sort of up-and-down program before or after trial. Should the district court inquire of each defense counsel as to whether he or she attempted a “plea bargain”? Does the court have to inquire as to whether the government would enter into such negotiations? And what precisely would trigger such an inquiry; jointly indicted defendants? Or is every defendant to be questioned?
The majority agrees that nothing in the record would have alerted the trial court to inquire or question the independence of the defendant’s representation. The defendant insisted that she was a victim of the co-defendant’s coercion and went to trial on that issue.
The drowning man clutches at hairs; I don’t blame this defendant for her late defense, attacking her attorney. I do object to requiring an inquiry into a matter that would seem to assume the defendant’s guilt (or why “bargain”?) or assume a lawyer’s malpractice. This record shows that the defendant was well represented and fairly convicted. That should end the inquiry. I would affirm.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9493633. Public record. Not legal advice.