Hunter v. United States · ¶79

In my view, today's decision rests on longstanding waiver principles and thus falls in the latter category. See ante, at 725 (majority opinion) (comparing appeal waivers to “waivers of other rights held by criminal defendants”). It is well established that a defendant may “intentional[ly] relinquis[h] or abando[n] . . . a known right.” Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U. S. 458, 464 (1938); see Shutte v. Thompson, 15 Wall. 151, 159 (1873) (“[A] court whose province it is to administer justice, will take care that on the trial of every cause neither party shall reap any advantage from his own fraud”). All the same, the Court and other authorities have long recognized that a court should not enforce a waiver when doing so would “irreparably discredi[t] the federal courts.” United States v. Mezzanatto, 513 U. S. 196, 204 (1995) (internal quotation marks omitted); see 1 J. Bishop, Commentaries on the…

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