From TPM Reader DL ...

I’ll preface this by saying that I am, like RS, a criminal defense lawyer in a state other than Minnesota. I disagree with the analysis RS provided regarding Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID) and his ability to withdraw his guilty plea. It appears that the plea was accomplished by a written form without an actual court appearance, so there will be no “transcript” of the proceedings to challenge. Presumably this plea form and procedure has been vetted by the MN courts previously. The form provides a place where Craig waived his right to counsel, and given that the man is a U.S. Senator I suspect a judge will be skeptical about claims that he didn’t understand his options. There are two other points arguing against allowing him to withdraw his plea that have not received enough coverage:

1. The written plea agreement provided that the more serious charge (Interference with Privacy – a Gross Misdemeanor) be withdrawn. How did that come about? Either Craig or a lawyer on his behalf negotiated this with the prosecution – either case is not consistent with Craig’s characterization of the sequence of events.

2. The written plea agreement signed and mailed to the court by Craig contains a specific sentencing agreement providing that the 10-day jail term be suspended, that there be 1 year of unsupervised probation, etc. Like the issue of the dropped charge, this must have required some negotiation by Craig or someone on his behalf and demonstrates a deliberate strategy by Craig.

Finally, courts have a compelling incentive not to allow people to withdraw their guilty pleas after sentencing, because many defendants who receive stiff sentences from the judge will change their minds and take their chances at trial (ask any defense lawyer and he or she will tell you about plea bargains that looked good up until the moment the judge hammered their client at sentencing).

And TPM Reader NS seems to concur ...

I am an ex-criminal defense lawyer in Minnesota so I am only commenting based on my memory of how pleas are handled here. Generally reader RS's is correct in that if a guilty plea is handled at arraignment/first appearance the questioning about the waiver of rights is short. However often on a plea to any sort of misdemeanor greater than traffic, judges often required that a pro-se party read and complete a plea petition, which accurately described all the rights that are being waived, including the right to trial, right to confront witnesses, right suppress evidence, and the right to an attorney.

Also more to the point, according to the MSM, Larry Craig apparently completed his plea by mail after submitting a 3 page plea agreement. While I have not seen the agreement, I would guess that it contains a detailed statement of the facts alleged, an extensive and detailed explanation of his rights, and explicit acknowledgement that by signing and submitting of the plea agreement to the court he is freely and knowingly waiving those rights and admitting to the facts alleged.

Just days ago, the Minnesota Court of Appeals issued an opinion explaining the standard for a guilty plea to be valid, it must be accurate, voluntary, and intelligent (i.e., knowingly and understandingly made). Once a guilty plea has been entered, there is no absolute right to withdraw that plea. But Minn. R. Crim. P. 15.05, subd. 1, allows a defendant to withdraw a guilty plea upon a timely motion and showing of manifest injustice. The burden is on the defendant to demonstrate that the refusal to allow him to withdraw his plea is manifestly unjust. It is manifestly unjust to refuse to allow the defendant to withdraw a plea if that plea is not accurate, voluntary, or intelligent. (Munger v. State, A06-1563 (Minn. App. 8-28-2007))

While I don't know the ins-and-outs of how the courts apply the Manifest Injustice" standard, it would seem under the circumstances Craig's attorney would have to show that after reading the 3 page plea agreement, Craig didn't understand what he was doing and it was manifestly unjust to accept his plea of guilty.