The material in this article is general legal information for educational use only. It should not be treated as legal, financial, or tax advice, and reading it does not form an attorney-client relationship. Legal rules vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Questions about a specific matter belong with a qualified professional. The author and publisher disclaim liability for actions taken in reliance on this content.
Key Facts
- National overview: The original ABA Now page at the legacy URL was no longer live when checked in this research run, so this article is a partial recovery rather than a verbatim reproduction.
- National overview: Available evidence suggests the legacy item appears to relate to ABA Resolution 113E, but the exact original page title and wording were not recovered.
- National overview: An ABA policies source identified Resolution 113E as an approved August 2013 resolution.
- National overview: The captured ABA language says Resolution 113E opposed plea or sentencing agreements that waived post-conviction claims involving ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, or destruction of evidence unless based on past conduct known to the defendant.
- National overview: The ABA House of Delegates approved related policies at the 2013 Annual Meeting according to a separate ABA Washington Letter source.
- Federal level: A later DOJ source snippet stated that on October 14, 2014, the Attorney General announced a policy directing federal prosecutors to stop asking for future ineffective-assistance-of-counsel waivers in plea agreements.
- National overview: ABA policy advocacy is not the same as binding law, so Resolution 113E should not be treated as a nationwide legal rule.
- State level: No verified source in this record establishes a single current State rule on these waivers, and this varies by state.
Last reviewed: May 2026. Legal rules, forms, deadlines, and procedures can change by jurisdiction, agency, and court system.
- What this archive recovery can and cannot confirm
- Why the legacy page matters
- The strongest identification is ABA Resolution 113E
- What Resolution 113E addressed
- ABA policy was not binding Federal or State law
- What the 2013 Annual Meeting source adds
- A later Federal development came from DOJ in 2014
- Federal and State context were never identical
- Bottom line on the missing page
- Sources
What this archive recovery can and cannot confirm
This page is a reconstruction for historical legal information. The original ABA Now page at the legacy URL is no longer available, and no reliable archive capture of its full text was recovered in this research record. Because of that gap, the article does not attempt a word-for-word restoration.
What can be said with reasonable confidence is narrower: available evidence suggests the missing item was connected to ABA Resolution 113E, a 2013 American Bar Association policy position about waiver language in plea or sentencing agreements.
Why the legacy page matters
Even without the original text, the subject matters because it sat at the intersection of criminal procedure, post-conviction review, and professional responsibility. Debate over waiver clauses in plea agreements raised a basic question: whether a defendant could be asked to give up later claims involving ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, or destruction of evidence.
That was not a minor procedural point. It touched on how the criminal system handles claims that go to the fairness and reliability of a conviction or sentence.
The strongest identification is ABA Resolution 113E
The most supportable identification comes from surviving official ABA references. According to the ABA’s Policies & Guidelines material, Resolution 113E was approved in August 2013. The captured language described it as opposing plea or sentencing agreements that waive a criminal defendant’s post-conviction claims addressing ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, or destruction of evidence unless the waiver was based on past conduct known to the defendant.
That language closely matches the theme tied to the legacy slug. Still, the evidence does not confirm the exact title of the missing June 2013 ABA Now page, and it does not confirm whether the lost item was a preview, announcement, or follow-up. For that reason, this recovery uses cautious phrasing rather than presenting the identification as absolute.
What Resolution 113E addressed
Based on the surviving ABA source language, Resolution 113E concerned waiver provisions in criminal plea or sentencing agreements. The captured wording focused on three categories of post-conviction claims:
- ineffective assistance of counsel
- prosecutorial misconduct
- destruction of evidence
The same ABA source language also included an important qualifier. It referred to waivers based on past conduct known to the defendant, which suggests the policy drew a distinction between already known facts and future claims that might arise later.
That distinction helps explain why the issue drew attention in criminal justice debates.
ABA policy was not binding Federal or State law
This is the key legal boundary. An ABA House of Delegates resolution is a policy position adopted by a national legal association. It can influence debate, professional standards, and later institutional choices, but it is not enacted legislation, a court ruling, or a binding regulation.
So even if the missing ABA Now item did cover Resolution 113E, that would not mean the resolution itself changed Federal law or created a nationwide State rule. It is better understood as advocacy and institutional policy, not as a direct source of enforceable criminal procedure law.
What the 2013 Annual Meeting source adds
A separate ABA Washington Letter source stated that the House of Delegates approved new policies at the 2013 Annual Meeting. That source also aligned with the same waiver-related subject matter.
Taken together, the surviving ABA references support a careful historical picture: the issue was active inside the ABA in 2013, the House of Delegates approved related policy in August 2013, and the missing legacy item likely fit within that same policy discussion.
Readers comparing this piece with other ABA archive recoveries may also find useful context in this earlier archive on access to justice and the rule of law, which shows how ABA news items often connected institutional policy work to broader justice-system debates.
A later Federal development came from DOJ in 2014
The later Federal story was separate from the ABA resolution. According to captured DOJ search-result evidence, on October 14, 2014, Attorney General Holder announced a policy directing federal prosecutors to no longer ask defendants to waive future ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims in plea agreements.
That matters because it shows a later government policy response at the Federal level. But it should not be collapsed into the 2013 ABA resolution. The ABA position and the DOJ policy were related developments, not the same legal act.
The evidence in this record also does not verify whether that 2014 DOJ policy remains unchanged today, so this article does not make claims about current Federal practice beyond the historical source language captured here.
Federal and State context were never identical
The waiver issue had both Federal and State significance, but the surviving sources here do not establish a single rule across all jurisdictions. The ABA language itself was broad enough to speak to criminal practice more generally, while the later DOJ material addressed federal prosecutors.
That means the historical debate can be understood in two layers:
| Layer | What the sources support |
|---|---|
| ABA policy layer | A national association opposed certain waiver language in plea or sentencing agreements. |
| Federal policy layer | DOJ later announced a policy change for federal prosecutors on future ineffective-assistance waivers. |
| State law layer | This varies by state, and no 50-state rule is verified in this record. |
Keeping those layers separate is important for accurate legal information.
Bottom line on the missing page
The original ABA Now page at `abanow.org/2013/06/2013am113e/` is gone, and no full archived copy was recovered here. Available evidence strongly suggests the legacy item related to ABA Resolution 113E and the debate over waiver clauses affecting post-conviction claims involving ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, and destruction of evidence.
What remains uncertain is the missing page’s exact title, its full body text, and its precise June 2013 framing. What remains supportable is the broader historical point: this was part of a 2013 ABA policy debate that later connected to a distinct 2014 Federal DOJ policy development.
