Hunter v. United States · ¶23

Because that is so, the standard for enforcing appeal waivers implicates the interests not only of the agreement's parties, but also of the judiciary. If a court always carries out those waivers—no matter the kind or degree of error tainting a sentence—the judicial system's integrity may come into question. This Court has explained the point when addressing waivers of other rights held by criminal defendants. In Wheat v. United States, 486 U. S. 153 (1988), for example, we held that a defendant's waiver of a lawyer's confict of interest did not necessarily “cure[ ] [the] problem[ ]” because he was not the only one with a stake: The “[f]ederal courts,” we reasoned, have an “independent” “institutional interest” in ensuring that legal proceedings “appear fair to all who observe them.” Id., at 160. So too, in United States v. Mezza natto, 513 U. S. 196 (1995), we recognized that some…

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.