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

defendantattorneyappealtrialtestimony
defendantattorneyappealtrialtestimonyrespondent

Related Cases

Haynes v. Cain, 298 F.3d 375
View Case »
Schatz v. Allen Matkins Leck Gamble & Mallory LLP, 45 Cal.4th 557, 198 P.3d 1109, 87 Cal.Rptr.3d 700, 09 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 981, 2009 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1190
View Case »
In re Marriage of Hinds, 205 Cal.App.3d 1398, 253 Cal.Rptr. 170
View Case »
McInnis v. State, 618 S.W.2d 389
View Case »
Mahoney v. Shaheen, Cappiello, Stein & Gordon, P.A., 143 N.H. 491, 727 A.2d 996
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U.S. 157, 106 S.Ct. 988, 89 L.Ed.2d 123, 54 USLW 4194

Facts

In preparation for his murder trial, the defendant, Whiteside, insisted he had seen a gun in the victim's hand, despite telling his attorney he had not actually seen one. His attorney, Robinson, advised him that he could not testify falsely and that doing so would require him to disclose the perjury to the court. Ultimately, Whiteside testified that he had not seen a gun, and he was convicted of second-degree murder. After his conviction, he claimed ineffective assistance of counsel due to Robinson's admonitions against perjury.

Whiteside testified in his own defense at trial and stated that he 'knew' that Love had a gun and that he believed Love was reaching for a gun and he had acted swiftly in self-defense.

Issue

Whether the Sixth Amendment right to assistance of counsel is violated when an attorney refuses to cooperate with a defendant in presenting perjured testimony.

We granted certiorari to decide whether the Sixth Amendment right of a criminal defendant to assistance of counsel is violated when an attorney refuses to cooperate with the defendant in presenting perjured testimony at his trial.

Rule

The Sixth Amendment does not require an attorney to assist a client in committing perjury, and an attorney's duty includes preventing the client from engaging in unlawful conduct.

The Sixth Amendment inquiry is into whether the attorney's conduct was 'reasonably effective.'

Analysis

The Court found that Robinson's actions were within the acceptable range of professional conduct. He was obligated to prevent his client from committing perjury, which is a crime that undermines the judicial process. The Court emphasized that the right to testify does not extend to the right to testify falsely, and thus, Robinson's refusal to assist in presenting false testimony did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.

Counsel's conduct here fell within the wide range of professional responses to threatened client perjury acceptable under the Sixth Amendment.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals, affirming that the defendant's right to counsel was not violated by his attorney's refusal to facilitate perjury.

Held: The Sixth Amendment right of a criminal defendant to assistance of counsel is not violated when an attorney refuses to cooperate with the defendant in presenting perjured testimony at his trial.

Who won?

The State prevailed in the case, as the Supreme Court upheld the attorney's actions in preventing perjury, affirming the integrity of the judicial process.

The Court of Appeals' holding is not supported by the record since counsel's action, at most, deprived respondent of his contemplated perjury.

You must be