Everything you need to know about ranked-choice voting in one spot. Click to learn more!

McCoy v. Louisiana

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
McCoy v. Louisiana
Term: 2017
Important Dates
Argument: January 17, 2018
Decided: May
Outcome
Supreme Court of Louisiana reversed
Vote
6 - 3 to reverse
Majority
Ruth Bader Ginsburg • John Roberts • Anthony Kennedy • Stephen Breyer • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan
Dissenting
Samuel Alito • Clarence Thomas • Neil Gorsuch


McCoy v. Louisiana is a case argued during the October 2017 term of the U.S. Supreme Court. Argument in the case was held on January 17, 2018. The case came on a writ of certiorari to the Louisiana Supreme Court.

The issue in this case was whether a defendant's constitutional rights are violated when his attorney concedes the defendant's guilt over the defendant's express objection.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: Robert McCoy was found guilty of three counts of first-degree murder. He argued that his constitutional rights were violated at trial when his attorney conceded McCoy's guilt, even though McCoy had expressly instructed his attorney not to concede guilt. The attorney believed the evidence against McCoy was overwhelming and that conceding guilt might save McCoy from the death penalty.
  • The issue: Is it unconstitutional for defense counsel to concede an accused's guilt over the accused's express objection?
  • The outcome: The Supreme Court held that it is unconstitutional for defense counsel to concede an accused's guilt over the accused's objection.[1]


    • In brief: Robert McCoy was charged with three counts of first-degree murder. After reviewing the case, his attorney concluded that the evidence against McCoy was overwhelming and that maintaining McCoy's innocence was not a useful strategy at trial. Against McCoy's express instructions--which were to maintain McCoy's innocence--his attorney conceded McCoy's guilt during the trial. McCoy was convicted. On appeal, he argued that his attorney's concession of guilt robbed him of his constitutional right to effective counsel.

    You can review the lower court's opinion here.[2]

    Background

    Legal question

    The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution states:

    “ In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.[3] ”

    The last line of the amendment establishes the constitutional right to an attorney. In other words, "The essential aim of the Amendment is to guarantee an effective advocate for each criminal defendant."[2] The right to be represented by an attorney is called the right to effective counsel. This case concerned the meaning and parameters of effective counsel. Specifically, this case concerned whether a defendant's right to effective counsel is violated if his attorney concedes the defendant's guilt against the defendant's wishes.

    Case background

    Robert LeRoy McCoy was arrested on three counts of first-degree murder. Originally represented by the public defender's office, McCoy fired his public defender and retained a private attorney, Larry English. Although McCoy steadfastly maintained his innocence, his private attorney concluded that the evidence against McCoy was overwhelming. In the attorney's opinion, McCoy's best chance to avoid the death penalty was to admit to the crimes and convince the jury to find him guilty of lesser charges that did not carry the risk of the death penalty.

    McCoy strongly objected to his attorney's strategy, maintaining that he did not want the attorney to concede guilt. Instead, McCoy instructed his attorney that McCoy would take the stand during the trial and offer alibi evidence on his own behalf. The attorney disagreed with McCoy's plan. He believed both that conceding guilt was the best strategic decision for McCoy's defense and that McCoy would perjure himself on the stand.

    A few days before trial, McCoy requested to have his attorney removed and to represent himself, but the trial court ruled that Mccoy's request was too late. McCoy's attorney explained their disagreement to the court and expressed that he believed he would violate his ethical obligations if he accepted McCoy's strategy. The trial court gave McCoy's attorney permission to decide which strategy to adopt.

    During his opening statement at McCoy's trial, McCoy's attorney told the jury that his client had killed the victims, but offered other grounds to encourage the jury to find McCoy guilty of the lesser offense of second-degree murder. McCoy was eventually found guilty and sentenced to death. He appealed the verdict and sentence on a number of grounds, including the claim that his attorney's decision to admit McCoy's guilty without McCoy's consent violated McCoy's constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel.

    Louisiana Supreme Court opinion

    The Supreme Court of Louisiana heard McCoy's appeal. The court acknowledged that, generally, "The agency relationship between an attorney and client anticipates that the attorney will comply with the client’s lawful instructions." However, in this case, "Presenting an alibi defense at the guilt phase put [McCoy's attorney] in an ethical conundrum, as committing perjury is a crime." The court cited an earlier United States Supreme Court case, Nix v. Whitesid, which established that a defendant's constitutional right to effective counsel is not violated if his attorney "refuses to cooperate with a defendant in presenting perjured testimony at trial."[2] The court concluded:

    “ Conceding guilt, in the hope of saving a defendant’s life at the penalty phase, is a reasonable course of action in a case in which evidence of guilt is overwhelming. Louisiana courts have consistently upheld the defense strategy of acknowledging guilt, against a charge of ineffective assistance of counsel.[2][4][3] ”

    The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed McCoy's conviction and sentence.

    Petitioner's challenge

    Robert McCoy, the petitioner, challenged the holding of the Louisiana Supreme Court. He argued that the Louisiana Supreme Court erred in concluding that McCoy's right to effective counsel was not violated when his attorney ignored McCoy's express instruction not to concede McCoy's guilt.[2]

    Certiorari granted

    On March 6, 2017, Robert McCoy, the petitioner, initiated proceedings in the Supreme Court of the United States in filing a [petition] for a writ of certiorari to the Louisiana Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court granted McCoy's request for certiorari on September 28, 2017. Argument in the case was held on January 17, 2018.[5]

    Question presented

    Question presented:

    "Is it unconstitutional for defense counsel to concede an accused's guilt over the accused's express objection?"[5]

    Audio

    • Audio of oral argument:[6]



    Transcript

    • Transcript of oral argument:[7]

    Outcome

    Decision

    Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the court. By a vote of 6 -3, the court reversed the Louisiana Supreme Court and held that defense counsel may not concede a defendant's guilt over the defendant's express objection.[1]

    Opinion of the court

    In her opinion for the court, Justice Ginsburg ruled that a defense counsel's professional strategic opinion could not overcome a defendant's right to decide whether to admit guilt:

    “ We hold that a defendant has the right to insist that counsel refrain from admitting guilt, even when counsel’s experienced-based view is that confessing guilt offers the defendant the best chance to avoid the death penalty. Guaranteeing a defendant the right 'to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence,' the Sixth Amendment so demands. With individual liberty—and, in capital cases, life—at stake, it is the defendant’s prerogative, not counsel’s, to decide on the objective of his defense: to admit guilt in the hope of gaining mercy at the sentencing stage, or to maintain his innocence, leaving it to the State to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.[1][3] ”


    Ginsburg wrote that the Sixth Amendment right to assistance of counsel provided just that--assistance. A defendant, she continued, does not surrender control over his case by seeking the assistance of an attorney. She wrote that some decisions, like what objections to raise, fell to the attorney to make, but others remained with the defendant. The choice of whether to concede guilt, she said, remained with the defendant, and the defendant may decide whether the goal of his defense is to achieve the lightest sentence, the goal McCoy's attorney pursued, or to maintain innocence, the goal McCoy wanted to pursue.

    “ Larry English was placed in a difficult position; he had an unruly client and faced a strong government case. He reasonably thought the objective of his representation should be avoidance of the death penalty. But McCoy insistently maintained: 'I did not murder my family.' App. 506. Once he communicated that to court and counsel, strenuously objecting to English’s proposed strategy, a concession of guilt should have been off the table. The trial court’s allowance of English’s admission of McCoy’s guilt despite McCoy’s insistent objections was incompatible with the Sixth Amendment.[1][3] ”


    Finally, Ginsburg rejected the Louisiana Supreme Court's contention that adopting McCoy's strategy would have put his attorney in a questionable legal position, since the attorney thought McCoy's testimony as to his innocence was untrue and would constitute perjury. Ginsburg wrote, "English harbored no doubt that McCoy believed what he was saying; English simply disbelieved McCoy’s account in view of the prosecution’s evidence." Therefore, she continued, "English’s express motivation for conceding guilt was not to avoid suborning perjury, but to try to build credibility with the jury, and thus obtain a sentence lesser than death." Regardless of the wisdom of that strategy, she concluded, the attorney could not pursue that strategy in light of McCoy's objections.[1]

    Dissent by Justice Alito

    Justice Samuel Alito dissented, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch. Justice Alito rejected the premise of the case as the majority presented it. He contended that the attorney's statement that McCoy killed the victims was not the same as stating that McCoy was guilty, because the act of killing the victims was only one element of the crime of murder:

    “ The Court overturns petitioner’s convictions for three counts of first-degree murder by attributing to his trial attorney, Larry English, something that English never did. The Court holds that English violated petitioner’s constitutional rights by 'admit[ting] h[is] client’s guilt of a charged crime over the client’s intransigent objection.' Ante, at 11.1 But English did not admit that petitioner was guilty of first-degree murder. Instead, faced with overwhelming evidence that petitioner shot and killed the three victims, English admitted that petitioner committed one element of that offense, i.e., that he killed the victims. But English strenuously argued that petitioner was not guilty of first-degree murder because he lacked the intent (the mens rea) required for the offense. App. 508–512. So the Court’s newly discovered fundamental right simply does not apply to the real facts of this case.[1][3] ”


    Text of the opinion

    See also

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 United States Supreme Court, "McCoy v. Louisiana Opinion," May 14, 2018
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 Louisiana Supreme Court, McCoy v. Louisiana, October 19, 2016
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    4. ↑ The court also address McCoy's other arguments. However, only his argument with regard to his attorney's admission of McCoy's guilt is at issue before the United States Supreme Court
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 Supreme Court of the United States, McCoy v. Louisiana Question Presented, September 28, 2017
    6. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, McCoy v. Louisiana, argued January 17, 2018
    7. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, McCoy v. Louisiana, argued January 17, 2018
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=McCoy_v._Louisiana&oldid=8892398"