This is the Cater Daily Podcast for Tuesday, March 28th, 2017.

I'm Caleb Brown.

Should juries know what penalties a defendant might face if they convict him

and is overwhelming evidence of guilt enough for a defendant to

rationally not pursue a jury trial. In the case of Lee v United States going

before the Supreme Court today, the concept of jury nullification may loom in the background.

Cato's Tim Lynch comments.

This case is about a person's right to good legal advice and their right to jury trial.

Mr. Lee emigrated to the United States as a boy with his parents from South Korea in

1982. He then grew up in the United States. He became involved in the restaurant

business in Memphis, Tennessee. Later, the government accused him of being a drug dealer involved in the ecstasy trade.

He then asked his attorney for advice.

He was particularly concerned about his being subject to deportation back to South Korea in the event of a conviction.

And as an attorney assured him that if he took the government's plea deal, he would not be subject to deportation.

As it turns out, his attorney's advice was wrong, and he is subject to deportation.

So that is the basic subject of his appeal. He is saying

that he only took a plea deal because of his attorney's advice. Everybody agrees

that advice was wrong, so he wants his conviction to be overturned so that he can either renegotiate a deal with the government or go to trial.

So the issue here is, because you say the fact of the attorney's advice being incorrect is not in dispute.

How does this get at the idea of you are entitled to competent legal representation.

Right, the Supreme Court has said that when you're facing a serious jail time you have a right to an attorney and not only a right to any

attorney but to have good legal advice and good legal representation. Now people

...