McCoy v. Louisiana

Last updated

McCoy v. Louisiana
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued January 17, 2018
Decided May 14, 2018
Full case nameMcCoy v. Louisiana
Docket no. 16-8255
Citations584 U.S. 414 ( more )
138 S. Ct. 1500; 200 L. Ed. 2d 821
Case history
PriorState v. McCoy, 218 So. 3d 535 (La. 2016); cert. granted, 138 S. Ct. 53 (2017).
SubsequentOn remand, 251 So. 3d 399 (La. 2018).
Holding
The Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant the right to choose the objective of his defense and to insist that his 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.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Anthony Kennedy  · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg  · Stephen Breyer
Samuel Alito  · Sonia Sotomayor
Elena Kagan  · Neil Gorsuch
Case opinions
MajorityGinsburg, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan
DissentAlito, joined by Thomas, Gorsuch

McCoy v. Louisiana, 584 U.S. 414 (2018), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held the Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant the right to decide that the objective of his defense is to maintain innocence at all costs, even when counsel believes that admitting guilt offers the defendant the best chance to avoid the death penalty.

Contents

Background

In 2008, Louisiana resident Robert McCoy was charged with the murder of his estranged wife's son, mother, and step-father; the prosecution sought the death penalty. [1] He was initially appointed counsel from the public defender's office, but intractable disagreements arose, and he discharged his public defender. [2] McCoy's parents hired a new lawyer, Larry English. [2] [3]

As McCoy was charged with a capital offense, his trial was divided into two phases: a "guilt phase" to determine if McCoy was guilty of the crime, and a "penalty phase" to determine the sentencing. English believed the evidence against McCoy was overwhelming and saw no hope of winning an acquittal. [2] Instead, English formulated a trial strategy based on conceding at the guilt phase that McCoy was the killer in the hope of avoiding a death sentence at the penalty phase. [2] [4] When English explained this strategy to McCoy, he protested, insisting he was innocent of the crime and seeking to have English removed as his counsel. [2] With only two days before trial was set to begin, the presiding judge refused. [2] English proceeded with his strategy, telling the jury there was no way they could conclude that McCoy was innocent based on the evidence at trial. [5] McCoy testified in his own defense, presenting a complex alibi [6] involving an interstate police conspiracy to frame him. [7] The jury convicted him of all three homicides. [6]

During the penalty phase, English argued that the jury should have mercy on McCoy in light of his "serious mental and emotional issues." [6] The jury reached a death verdict on each count. [6] [8]

McCoy appealed to the Louisiana Supreme Court, arguing that the trial court should not have allowed English to concede over McCoy's objections. [6] The court ruled against McCoy, relying on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Florida v. Nixon , [9] which determined that a lawyer could concede the defendant's guilt where the defendant neither expressly objected to nor opposed making such a concession. [10]

Opinion of the Court

On May 14, 2018, the Supreme Court announced judgment in favor of the accused, reversing the state court by a vote of 6-3. [11] [12] The Court held that the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees a defendant the right to choose the objective of the defense. [12] The majority opinion was written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. [13]

The Court grounded its decision in the right of self-representation recognized in Faretta v. California . [6] Even when a defendant chooses to be represented by counsel, the Court reasoned, he does not entirely surrender his right to control his own defense; rather, he retains the right to make certain fundamental decisions, like whether to plead guilty and whether to testify. [14] The choice about which McCoy and English disagreed—whether to concede guilt in the hope of avoiding a death sentence, or to maintain innocence at all costs—was one only the defendant may make. [15]

The Court declined to apply its ineffective-assistance-of-counsel framework, reasoning that McCoy's complaint was not about English's competence but rather about the trial court's ruling that English could proceed with his trial strategy of conceding guilt. [16] The Court further held that violating a defendant's Sixth Amendment autonomy right constitutes structural error. [17] McCoy was therefore not required to show that the error prejudiced his defense in order to receive a new trial. [17] The Court reversed McCoy's convictions and ordered that he be given a new trial. [12]

Dissent

Justice Samuel Alito dissented, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch. Alito argued that the Court had misunderstood the facts of McCoy's case. While the majority described English's strategy as a concession of guilt, Alito pointed out that English had only conceded that McCoy killed the three victims while maintaining that McCoy did not have the mental state required for first-degree murder. [18] Because both the actus reus and the mental state must be proven for a first-degree murder conviction in Louisiana, Alito argued, English had not actually conceded McCoy's guilt of the first-degree murder charge. [18] [19]

Alito also argued that the Court's decision would have problematic implications for trial attorneys deciding whether to concede certain elements of a charged offense. [19] For example, in defending a client charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, Alito noted, the Court's decision left unclear whether an attorney would be bound by the client's frivolous insistence on refusing to admit that he had a prior felony conviction, which could easily be proven.

Related Research Articles

In United States law, an Alford plea, also called a Kennedy plea in West Virginia, an Alford guilty plea, and the Alford doctrine, is a guilty plea in criminal court, whereby a defendant in a criminal case does not admit to the criminal act and asserts innocence, but accepts imposition of a sentence. This plea is allowed even if the evidence to be presented by the prosecution would be likely to persuade a judge or jury to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This can be caused by circumstantial evidence and testimony favoring the prosecution, and difficulty finding evidence and witnesses that would aid the defense.

In United States law, ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) is a claim raised by a convicted criminal defendant asserting that the defendant's legal counsel performed so ineffectively that it deprived the defendant of the constitutional right guaranteed by the Assistance of Counsel Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Ineffectiveness claims may only be brought where the defendant had the right to counsel, ordinarily during the critical stages of a prosecution.

Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 (2006), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court involving the right of a criminal defendant to present evidence that a third party instead committed the crime. The Court vacated the rape and murder conviction in South Carolina of a man who had been denied the opportunity to present evidence of a third party's guilt, because the trial court believed the prosecutor's forensic evidence was too strong for the defendant's evidence to raise an inference of innocence. The Court ruled unanimously that this exclusion violated the right of a defendant to have a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense, because the strength of a prosecutor's case had no logical relationship to whether a defendant's evidence was too weak to be admissible.

Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. 407 (2008), is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States which held that the Eighth Amendment's Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause prohibits the imposition of the death penalty for a crime in which the victim did not die and the victim's death was not intended.

Montejo v. Louisiana, 556 U.S. 778 (2009), is a 5–4 decision by the United States Supreme Court that overruled the Court's decision in Michigan v. Jackson. The case concerned the validity of a defendant's waiver of his right to counsel during a police interrogation. In reversing Jackson, the Court said such a waiver was valid.

Padilla v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court decided that criminal defense attorneys must advise noncitizen clients about the deportation risks of a guilty plea. The case extended the Supreme Court's prior decisions on criminal defendants' Sixth Amendment right to counsel to immigration consequences.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2009 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down nineteen per curiam opinions during its 2009 term, which began on October 5, 2009, and concluded October 3, 2010.

Snyder v. Louisiana, 552 U.S. 472 (2008), was a United States Supreme Court case about racial issues in jury selection in death penalty cases. Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the 7–2 majority, ruled that the prosecutor's use of peremptory strikes to remove African American jurors violated the Court's earlier holding in Batson v. Kentucky. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented.

Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353 (2008), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that held that for testimonial statements to be admissible under the forfeiture exception to hearsay, the defendant must have intended to make the witness unavailable for trial.

Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622 (2005), was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the constitutionality of shackling a prisoner during the sentencing phase of a trial. In a 7–2 opinion delivered by Justice Breyer, the court held that it is against due process, a right prescribed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, to shackle a defendant in the sentencing portion of a trial unless the shackling relates to a specific defendant and certain state interests.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States constitutional criminal procedure</span> United States constitutional criminal procedure

The United States Constitution contains several provisions regarding the law of criminal procedure.

Glossip v. Gross, 576 U.S. 863 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held, 5–4, that lethal injections using midazolam to kill prisoners convicted of capital crimes do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court found that condemned prisoners can only challenge their method of execution after providing a known and available alternative method.

Davis v. Ayala, 576 U.S. 257 (2015), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States upheld a death sentence of a Hispanic defendant despite the fact that all Blacks and Hispanics were rejected from the jury during the defendant's trial. The case involved a habeas corpus petition submitted by Hector Ayala, who was arrested and tried in the late 1980s for the alleged murder of three individuals during an attempted robbery of an automobile body shop in San Diego, California in April 1985. At trial, the prosecution used peremptory challenges to strike all Black and Hispanic jurors who were available for jury service. The trial court judge allowed the prosecution to explain the basis for the peremptory challenges outside the presence of Ayala's counsel, "so as not to disclose trial strategy". Ayala was ultimately sentenced to death, but he filed several appeals challenging the constitutionality of the trial court's decision to exclude his counsel from the hearings.

Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685 (2002), was a Supreme Court of the United States case that upheld a death sentence despite the defendant's argument that he should not be sentenced to death because he was suffering from drug-induced psychosis when he committed the crimes. Cone also argued that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to present sufficient mitigating evidence during the sentencing phase of his trial and that his attorney inappropriately waived his final argument during the sentencing phase. In an 8–1 opinion written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, the United States Supreme Court denied Cone's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The Court held that the actions taken by Cone's attorney during the sentencing phase were "tactical decisions" and that the state courts that denied Cone's appeals did not unreasonably apply clearly established law. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that Cone was denied effective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to "subject the prosecution's case to meaningful adversarial testing."

Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court clarified the Sixth Amendment standard for reversing convictions due to ineffective assistance of counsel during plea bargaining. The Court ruled that when a lawyer's ineffective assistance leads to the rejection of a plea agreement, a defendant is entitled to relief if the outcome of the plea process would have been different with competent advice. In such cases, the Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment requires the trial judge to exercise discretion to determine an appropriate remedy.

Madison v. Alabama, 586 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, barring cruel and unusual punishment. The case deals with whether the Eighth Amendment prohibits executing a person for a crime they do not remember.

Garza v. Idaho, 586 U.S. ___, 139 S. Ct. 738 (2019), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that the presumption of prejudice for Sixth Amendment purposes applies regardless of whether a defendant has waived the right to appeal.

Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. 83 (2020), is a U.S. Supreme Court decision in which the Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires that guilty verdicts be unanimous in criminal trials. See 590 U.S. 83 at 90 (2020) "Wherever we might look to determine what the term “trial by an impartial jury” meant at the time of the Sixth Amendment's adoption—whether it's the common law, state practices in the founding era, or opinions and treatises written soon afterward—the answer is unmistakable. A jury must reach a unanimous verdict in order to convict." Only cases in Oregon and Louisiana were affected by the ruling because every other state already had this requirement. The decision incorporated the Sixth Amendment requirement for unanimous jury criminal convictions against the states, and thereby overturned the Court's previous decision from the 1972 cases Apodaca v. Oregon and Johnson v. Louisiana.

Home Depot U. S. A., Inc. v. Jackson, 587 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case which determined that a third-party defendant to a counterclaim submitted in a state-court civil action cannot remove their case to federal court. The Court explained, in a 5–4 decision, that although a third-party counterclaim defendant is a "defendant to a claim," removal can only be performed by the defendant to a "civil action." And this holds true even when the counterclaim is in the form of a class action. The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 permits removal by "any defendant to a class action" but this does not extend removal rights to a third-party counterclaim defendant because they are not a defendant to the original case.

Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, is a 2011 United States Supreme Court case concerning evidentiary development in federal habeas corpus proceedings. Oral arguments in the case took place on November 9, 2010, and the Supreme Court issued its decision on April 4, 2011. The Supreme Court held 5–4 that only evidence originally presented before the state court in which the claim was originally adjudicated on the merits could be presented when raising a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), and that evidence from a federal habeas court could not be presented in such proceedings. It also held that the convicted murderer Scott Pinholster, the respondent in the case, was not entitled to the habeas relief he had been granted by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

References

  1. ↑ McCoy, 138 S. Ct. at 1505–06.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 McCoy, 138 S. Ct. at 1506.
  3. ↑ Mays, Jeffery C. (January 15, 2018). "To Try to Save Client's Life, a Lawyer Ignored His Wishes. Can He Do That?". The New York Times . p. A1. Retrieved July 7, 2019.
  4. ↑ Liptak, Adam (May 14, 2018). "Supreme Court Rules for Death Row Inmate Betrayed by His Lawyer". The New York Times . Retrieved May 15, 2018.
  5. ↑ McCoy, 138 S. Ct. at 1506–07.
  6. 1 2 3 4 5 6 McCoy, 138 S. Ct. at 1507.
  7. ↑ McCoy, 138 S. Ct. at 1513 (Alito, J., dissenting).
  8. ↑ Nixon, 543 U.S. at 192.
  9. ↑ 543 U.S. 175 (2004).
  10. ↑ Liptak, Adam (October 7, 2017). "Facing the Death Penalty With a Disloyal Lawyer". The New York Times . Retrieved May 15, 2018.
  11. ↑ Liptak, Adam (May 14, 2018). "Supreme Court Rules for Death Row Inmate Betrayed by His Lawyer". The New York Times . Retrieved July 7, 2019.
  12. 1 2 3 McCoy, 138 S. Ct. at 1512.
  13. ↑ Note, The Supreme Court, 2017 Term — Leading Cases , 132 Harv. L. Rev. 377(2018).
  14. ↑ McCoy, 138 S. Ct. at 1507–08.
  15. ↑ McCoy, 138 S. Ct. at 1508.
  16. ↑ McCoy, 138 S. Ct. at 1510–11.
  17. 1 2 McCoy, 138 S. Ct. at 1511.
  18. 1 2 McCoy, 138 S. Ct. at 1512–14 (Alito, J., dissenting).
  19. 1 2 McCoy, 138 S. Ct. at 1516–17 (Alito, J., dissenting).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.