Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Civil Liberties
Related: About this forumOpinion analysis: Court rules for death-row inmate whose lawyer conceded guilt
#SCOTUS rules 6-3 that a defense attorney in a capital case cannot concede the defendant's guilt over the defendant's express objection
Link to tweet
First thing I did was look for the dissenters. Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch.
Link to tweet
Amy Howe Independent Contractor and Reporter
Posted Mon, May 14th, 2018 11:42 am
howe.amy@gmail.com
Opinion analysis: Court rules for death-row inmate whose lawyer conceded guilt
{NOTE: This post will be updated with additional analysis later in the day.}
This morning the Supreme Court overturned a Louisiana inmates death sentence because the inmates lawyer hoping to save his clients life had told the jury that the inmate was guilty, even though the inmate had expressly objected to that strategy. The 6-3 ruling reiterated that the Constitution gives a criminal defendant the fundamental right to make decisions about his defense and therefore bars a defense lawyer from going against his clients instructions, even when the lawyers defense strategy might seem perfectly reasonable.
The decision came in the case of Robert McCoy, who in 2011 was on trial for the shooting deaths of his estranged wifes son, mother and stepfather. McCoy clashed with his public defenders, so his parents hired a private attorney, Larry English, to represent him. McCoy insisted that he was innocent and was being framed in retaliation for revealing that local police were involved in a drug ring, but English believed that the evidence against his client was overwhelming. So English first encouraged McCoy to plead guilty in exchange for a life sentence; as McCoys trial approached, English told McCoy that he planned to tell the jury that McCoy had committed all three murders, in the hope that doing so would convince the jury to sentence McCoy to life in prison, rather than death. McCoy was furious, but English went ahead with his plan, telling the jury that McCoy was crazy and lives in a fantasy world.
Englishs strategy failed: The jury found McCoy guilty of first-degree murder and sentenced him to death. State courts in Louisiana upheld McCoys conviction and death sentence, rejecting his argument that Englishs decision to admit McCoys guilt, despite McCoys objections, violated the Constitution. Today the Supreme Court, in a relatively brief (13-page) decision by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, ordered the Louisiana courts to give McCoy a new trial.
The majority explained that even when a defendant is represented by an attorney, he does not give up all control over his case to the attorney. A criminal defendants lawyer may be responsible for what the court described as trial management for example, what evidence to object to and what arguments to pursue but the defendant himself has the sole right to make some decisions, such as whether to plead guilty or to waive the right to a jury trial. The decision to maintain ones innocence, the court reasoned, falls within the category of decisions reserved for the defendant: If the defendant tells his attorney that the objective of his defence is to maintain innocence of the charged criminal acts, the court continued, the attorney must follow that instruction and cannot override it by conceding guilt. This means, the majority concluded, that once English knew that McCoy objected to his proposed strategy of admitting McCoys guilt to the jury, it was not Englishs place to override McCoys objection.
This post was also published at Howe on the Court.
Posted in McCoy v. Louisiana, Featured, Merits Cases
Recommended Citation: Amy Howe, Opinion analysis: Court rules for death-row inmate whose lawyer conceded guilt, SCOTUSblog (May. 14, 2018, 11:42 AM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/05/opinion-analysis-court-rules-for-death-row-inmate-whose-lawyer-conceded-guilt/
Posted Mon, May 14th, 2018 11:42 am
howe.amy@gmail.com
Opinion analysis: Court rules for death-row inmate whose lawyer conceded guilt
{NOTE: This post will be updated with additional analysis later in the day.}
This morning the Supreme Court overturned a Louisiana inmates death sentence because the inmates lawyer hoping to save his clients life had told the jury that the inmate was guilty, even though the inmate had expressly objected to that strategy. The 6-3 ruling reiterated that the Constitution gives a criminal defendant the fundamental right to make decisions about his defense and therefore bars a defense lawyer from going against his clients instructions, even when the lawyers defense strategy might seem perfectly reasonable.
The decision came in the case of Robert McCoy, who in 2011 was on trial for the shooting deaths of his estranged wifes son, mother and stepfather. McCoy clashed with his public defenders, so his parents hired a private attorney, Larry English, to represent him. McCoy insisted that he was innocent and was being framed in retaliation for revealing that local police were involved in a drug ring, but English believed that the evidence against his client was overwhelming. So English first encouraged McCoy to plead guilty in exchange for a life sentence; as McCoys trial approached, English told McCoy that he planned to tell the jury that McCoy had committed all three murders, in the hope that doing so would convince the jury to sentence McCoy to life in prison, rather than death. McCoy was furious, but English went ahead with his plan, telling the jury that McCoy was crazy and lives in a fantasy world.
Englishs strategy failed: The jury found McCoy guilty of first-degree murder and sentenced him to death. State courts in Louisiana upheld McCoys conviction and death sentence, rejecting his argument that Englishs decision to admit McCoys guilt, despite McCoys objections, violated the Constitution. Today the Supreme Court, in a relatively brief (13-page) decision by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, ordered the Louisiana courts to give McCoy a new trial.
The majority explained that even when a defendant is represented by an attorney, he does not give up all control over his case to the attorney. A criminal defendants lawyer may be responsible for what the court described as trial management for example, what evidence to object to and what arguments to pursue but the defendant himself has the sole right to make some decisions, such as whether to plead guilty or to waive the right to a jury trial. The decision to maintain ones innocence, the court reasoned, falls within the category of decisions reserved for the defendant: If the defendant tells his attorney that the objective of his defence is to maintain innocence of the charged criminal acts, the court continued, the attorney must follow that instruction and cannot override it by conceding guilt. This means, the majority concluded, that once English knew that McCoy objected to his proposed strategy of admitting McCoys guilt to the jury, it was not Englishs place to override McCoys objection.
This post was also published at Howe on the Court.
Posted in McCoy v. Louisiana, Featured, Merits Cases
Recommended Citation: Amy Howe, Opinion analysis: Court rules for death-row inmate whose lawyer conceded guilt, SCOTUSblog (May. 14, 2018, 11:42 AM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/05/opinion-analysis-court-rules-for-death-row-inmate-whose-lawyer-conceded-guilt/
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-8255_i4ek.pdf
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
2 replies, 1334 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (7)
ReplyReply to this post
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Opinion analysis: Court rules for death-row inmate whose lawyer conceded guilt (Original Post)
mahatmakanejeeves
May 2018
OP
Man whose lawyer admitted his guilt against his wishes deserves new trial, Supreme Court says.
mahatmakanejeeves
May 2018
#2
elleng
(136,570 posts)1. Thank GOODNESS!
mahatmakanejeeves
(61,298 posts)2. Man whose lawyer admitted his guilt against his wishes deserves new trial, Supreme Court says.
Man whose lawyer admitted his guilt against his wishes deserves new trial, Supreme Court says. Backstory here:
Link to tweet