&gt; Scalia was one of the most consistent and strong advocates for defendants&#x27; rights<p>That&#x27;s not my impression and I quickly found the following, but I can&#x27;t say the examples are representative of the overall trend or if the analyses are accurate (and I can&#x27;t say the same of your examples). However, they are hard to reconcile with your claim:<p>1) <i>Scalia is known for taking a hard stance against criminal defendants, and has long advocated striking down Miranda v. Arizona and upholding the constitutionality of the death penalty</i><p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;scarinciattorney.com&#x2F;supreme-court-justices&#x2F;antonin-scalia&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;scarinciattorney.com&#x2F;supreme-court-justices&#x2F;antonin-s...</a><p>2) <i>Defendants in criminal cases have a constitutional right to a competent lawyer&#x27;s advice when deciding whether to accept a plea bargain, the Supreme Court ruled ... The ruling drew a sharply worded dissent from Justice Antonin Scalia, ... He angrily called the court&#x27;s rulings a &quot;judicially invented right to effective plea bargaining.&quot;</i> The article notes, <i>97% of federal convictions and 94% of state convictions result from guilty pleas</i>.<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;articles.latimes.com&#x2F;2012&#x2F;mar&#x2F;21&#x2F;nation&#x2F;la-na-court-plea-20120322" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;articles.latimes.com&#x2F;2012&#x2F;mar&#x2F;21&#x2F;nation&#x2F;la-na-court-p...</a><p>3) Ring v Arizona: <i>holding that the Sixth Amendment requires a jury</i> [i.e., not merely a judge] <i>to find the aggravating factors necessary for imposing the death penalty</i>. Scalia dissented: He voted to deny defendants the right to a jury for those purposes.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Ring_v_Arizona" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Ring_v_Arizona</a><p>4) Lawrence v Texas: <i>The Court struck down the sodomy law in Texas and, by extension, invalidated sodomy laws in 13 other states, making same-sex sexual activity legal in every U.S. state and territory.</i> - in 2003! Scalia dissented, which if successful (and IIUC) would have sent defendant Lawrence to prison for having sex. Again, in 2003!<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Lawrence_v._Texas" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Lawrence_v._Texas</a><p>----<p>If the above is correct and I understand correctly: He opposed Miranda, the minimal requirement to inform defendants of their rights; opposed the right to an attorney for plea bargains, from which result &gt;94% of criminal convictions; opposed the right to a jury for a essential aspect of death sentences; and voted to allow the state to imprison a defendant for having consensual sex with an adult.<p>I&#x27;m sure there are some grey areas, but I have a hard time seeing him as a ally of criminal defendants.