Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendantattorneyappealtestimony
defendantattorneytrialtestimony

Related Cases

Oliveri v. Thompson, 803 F.2d 1265, 55 USLW 2298, 5 Fed.R.Serv.3d 761
View Case »
In re Teleglobe Communications Corp., 493 F.3d 345
View Case »
State ex rel. McDougall v. Superior Court In and For County of Maricopa, 186 Ariz. 218, 920 P.2d 784
View Case »
U.S. v. Kovel, 296 F.2d 918, 96 A.L.R.2d 116, 9 A.F.T.R.2d 366, 62-1 USTC P 9111
View Case »
Chin v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, 685 F.3d 135, 115 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 720, 95 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 44,555
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

People v. DePallo, 96 N.Y.2d 437, 754 N.E.2d 751, 729 N.Y.S.2d 649, 2001 N.Y. Slip Op. 05941

Facts

Defendant and his accomplices brutally attacked a 71-year-old man, resulting in his death. Evidence, including the defendant's blood and fingerprints, linked him to the crime scene. Despite his attorney's advice against testifying, the defendant insisted on taking the stand and provided false testimony, claiming he was home during the crime. After the defendant's testimony, his attorney informed the court of the perjury, leading to the appeal.

Defendant and his accomplices executed a calculated attack on a 71–year–old man, ransacking his home, stabbing him repeatedly with a knife and scissors, and finally bludgeoning him to death with a shovel.

Issue

Did the defense counsel render ineffective assistance by informing the court of the defendant's perjury, and did the defendant have a right to be present during the ex parte communication between the court and counsel?

Did the defense counsel render ineffective assistance by informing the court of the defendant's perjury, and did the defendant have a right to be present during the ex parte communication between the court and counsel?

Rule

A defendant's right to testify does not include the right to commit perjury, and an attorney's duty to represent a client is limited by the obligation to comply with the law and prevent fraud upon the court.

A defendant's right to testify at trial does not include a right to commit perjury (see, United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87, 96, 113 S.Ct. 1111, 122 L.Ed.2d 445; Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222, 225, 91 S.Ct. 643, 28 L.Ed.2d 1), and the Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of counsel does not compel counsel to assist or participate in the presentation of perjured testimony (see, Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U.S. 157, 173, 106 S.Ct. 988, 89 L.Ed.2d 123).

Analysis

The court found that the defense counsel acted appropriately by attempting to dissuade the defendant from testifying falsely and ultimately informing the court of the perjury. The court emphasized that the attorney's actions were in line with ethical obligations and did not breach any professional duty. The ex parte communication was deemed procedural, and the defendant's absence did not affect his ability to defend against the charges.

In this case, defense counsel first sought to dissuade defendant from testifying falsely, and indeed from testifying at all. Defendant insisted on proceeding to give the perjured testimony and, thereafter, counsel properly notified the court (see, People v. Salquerro, 107 Misc.2d 155, 433 N.Y.S.2d 711, supra; see also, People v. Campos, 249 A.D.2d 237, 672 N.Y.S.2d 680 [counsel properly informed the court about defendant's confidential plan to have counsel participate in laying a false foundation for a speedy trial application], lv. denied 92 N.Y.2d 923, 680 N.Y.S.2d 464, 703 N.E.2d 276).

Conclusion

The court affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, concluding that the defense counsel's actions were justified and that the defendant's rights were not violated.

Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Who won?

The People (State of New York) prevailed because the court upheld the conviction and found no ineffective assistance of counsel.

The Appellate Division affirmed, rejecting defendant's claims that he was denied effective assistance of counsel when his attorney disclosed the perjured testimony to the court and that the ex parte conference was a material stage of trial.

You must be