Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Byron White held that a guilty plea is not invalid simply because it was entered to avoid the possibility of a death penalty, as long as the plea was made voluntarily and with a full understanding of its consequences. White argued that the Court’s decision in United States v. Jackson (1968) did not mean that all guilty pleas influenced by the fear of the death penalty were involuntary. Instead, he asserted that a plea is voluntary if it is an informed and intelligent choice among the alternatives available to the defendant. White explained, “[a] plea of guilty is not invalid merely because entered to avoid the possibility of the death penalty,” and highlighted that Brady's plea met the standard of voluntariness as it was made “by one fully aware of the direct consequences.”

White emphasized that the voluntariness of a plea must be evaluated based on the totality of circumstances, including the defendant’s knowledge of the consequences and the context in which the plea was made. In Brady’s case, his plea was considered voluntary because it was made after advice from competent counsel and with a clear understanding of the situation. White noted that even if the possibility of the death penalty influenced Brady’s decision, this did not necessarily make the plea involuntary or invalid.

White also addressed the broader implications of prohibiting all guilty pleas influenced by the possibility of a harsher penalty, arguing that such a rule would unduly restrict the flexibility of the criminal justice system. He maintained that the presence of competent counsel and the opportunity to make an informed decision ensured the voluntariness of Brady’s plea, distinguishing his situation from cases involving possible coercion.