A new editorial in the Des Moines Register on the Tovar decision asks:

Why not additional instructions? That doesn't seem a big deal. As the Iowa Supreme Court pointed out in its opinion by Justice Marsha Ternus last year, "The trial judge need only advise the defendant generally that there are defenses to criminal charges that may not be known by laypersons . . . ." What possible harm could there be in requiring a judge to utter a few sentences designed to alert defendants to their rights?

The following is a verbatim record of the guilty plea hearing as reported in the original Iowa Supreme Court decision:

The Court: We are on the record in the State of Iowa versus Felipe Tovar, Case No. 23989. This is the time and place set for arraignment on a trial information charging the defendant with operating while intoxicated. Mr. Tovar appears without counsel and I see, Mr. Tovar, that you waived application for a court appointed attorney. Did you want to represent yourself at today’s hearing?
Tovar: Yes, sir.
. . . .
The Court: And did you want me to read that information to you or did you want to waive the reading?
Tovar: Waive the reading.
The Court: And how do you wish to plead?
Tovar: Guilty.
. . . .
The Court: All right. Gentlemen, if you continue with this desire to plead guilty, there are certain rights that each one of you will be giving up and I now will explain those rights to you. First of all, if you enter a plea of not guilty, you would be entitled to a speedy and a public trial by jury. But, if you plead guilty, you give up your right to have a trial of any kind on your charge. . . Do you understand that, Mr. [Tovar]?
Tovar: Yes, sir.
. . . .
The Court: If you would enter a plea of not guilty, not only would you have a right to a trial, you would have a right to be represented by an attorney at that trial, including a court appointed attorney. That attorney could help you select a jury, question and cross-examine the State’s witnesses, present evidence, if any, in your behalf, and make arguments to the judge and jury on your behalf. But, if you plead guilty, not only do you give up your right to a trial, you give up your right to be represented by an attorney at that trial. . . . Do you understand that, Mr. [Tovar]?
Tovar: Yes, sir.
. . . .
The Court: Gentlemen, those are the rights that you will be giving up if you plead guilty. Knowing that, did you still want to plead guilty? . . . . Mr. [Tovar]?
Tovar: Yes, sir.

(end)

So Tovar was informed: 1) He had the right to be represented by an attorney at trial, 2) What the attorney could help him do, and 3) He had the right to a court-appointed attorney.

He knew what he had the right to - an attorney, and a court-appointed attorney if necessary. He was even told why he wanted one - to help him select a jury, question and cross-examine the State’s witnesses, present evidence, if any, on his behalf, and make arguments to the judge and jury on his behalf. What else is there?

The Iowa Supreme Court had said that the defendant must be advised specifically that waiving counsel ’s assistance in deciding whether to plead guilty (1) entails the risk that a viable defense will be overlooked and (2) deprives him of the opportunity to obtain an independent opinion on whether, under the facts and applicable law, it is wise to plead guilty.

In other words, 1) The Court must tell a defendant what he's entitled to - a court-appointed attorney; 2) The Court must also tell a defendant why one might be useful - to help try and argue the case; but 3) The Court must go a further step to indicate what potential negative consequences could occur if one is not obtained, in this case the defendant could overlook a defense or fail to get an independent opinion on whether pleading guilty is a good idea.

Couldn't this arguably be extended to other consequences of the plea:

I didn't know my job wouldn't be waiting for me when I got out of prison for theft.

I didn't know my kids could be removed from the home while I was in prison for child endangerment.

I didn't understand my husband could divorce me when he discovered my prostitution conviction.

Will the judge be required to inform the defendant that these things could happen if an attorney isn't consulted prior to pleading guilty? Or is just a blanket notification that "bad things could happen" enough? The US Supreme Court has indicated neither is necessary under the federal consitution. Let's hope the Iowa courts follow suit.