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

defendantappealtrialtestimonyhabeas corpusdue process
defendantappealtrialhabeas corpusdue process

Related Cases

Matthews v. United States, 13 A.3d 1181
View Case »
People v. Winkler, 56 Cal.App.5th 1102, 271 Cal.Rptr.3d 88, 20 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 11,479, 2020 Daily Journal D.A.R. 11,909
View Case »
Rowe v. Yuba County, 17 Cal. 61, 1860 WL 999
View Case »
Herrmann v. Summer Plaza Corp., 201 Conn. 263, 513 A.2d 1211
View Case »
Heavener v. Meyers, 158 F.Supp.2d 1278
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Whiteside v. Scurr, 744 F.2d 1323

Facts

Emmanuel Charles Whiteside was convicted of second degree murder for the stabbing death of Calvin Love in 1977. During the trial, Whiteside's defense was based on self-defense, claiming he believed Love had a gun. However, his defense counsel discovered inconsistencies in Whiteside's statements regarding the gun and threatened to withdraw from the case and testify against him if he insisted on testifying falsely. This threat led to Whiteside's limited testimony during the trial, ultimately resulting in his conviction.

During the trial, Whiteside's defense was based on self-defense, claiming he believed Love had a gun. However, his defense counsel discovered inconsistencies in Whiteside's statements regarding the gun and threatened to withdraw from the case and testify against him if he insisted on testifying falsely.

Issue

Did the defense counsel's threats to withdraw and testify against Whiteside deny him the right to effective assistance of counsel and due process?

Did the defense counsel's threats to withdraw and testify against Whiteside deny him the right to effective assistance of counsel and due process?

Rule

A criminal defendant has a constitutional right to testify in their own defense, which is implicit in the due process guarantees of the fifth and fourteenth amendments and the sixth amendment's right to present evidence.

A criminal defendant has a constitutional right to testify in their own defense, which is implicit in the due process guarantees of the fifth and fourteenth amendments and the sixth amendment's right to present evidence.

Analysis

The court found that the defense counsel's actions in threatening to withdraw and testify against Whiteside if he testified falsely compromised his right to effective assistance of counsel. The court emphasized that while counsel has an ethical duty to avoid facilitating perjury, this duty must be balanced against the defendant's constitutional rights. The court concluded that the counsel's threats forced Whiteside to choose between his right to testify and his right to effective representation, infringing upon both rights.

The court found that the defense counsel's actions in threatening to withdraw and testify against Whiteside if he testified falsely compromised his right to effective assistance of counsel.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case, directing that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be granted if the state did not initiate new trial proceedings.

The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case, directing that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be granted if the state did not initiate new trial proceedings.

Who won?

Emmanuel Charles Whiteside prevailed in the appeal because the court found that his defense counsel's actions violated his constitutional rights.

Emmanuel Charles Whiteside prevailed in the appeal because the court found that his defense counsel's actions violated his constitutional rights.

You must be