McCoy v. Louisiana

Last updated
McCoy v. Louisiana
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued January 17, 2018
Decided May 14, 2018
Full case nameMcCoy v. Louisiana
Docket no. 16-8255
Citations584 U.S. ___ ( 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. ___ (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

An Alford plea, in United States law, is a guilty plea in criminal court, whereby a defendant in a criminal case does not admit to the criminal act and asserts innocence. In entering an Alford plea, the defendant admits that the evidence presented by the prosecution would be likely to persuade a judge or jury to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Samuel Alito Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States

Samuel Anthony Alito Jr. is an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. He was nominated by President George W. Bush and has served since January 31, 2006.

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 that held that the Eighth Amendment's Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause prohibits imposing the death penalty for the rape of a child in cases where the victim did not die and 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.

2009 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States

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.

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 is against due process, a right prescribed by the 5th and 14th Amendments, to shackle a defendant in the sentencing portion of a trial unless the shackling relates to a specific defendant and certain state interests.

Burt v. Titlow, 571 U.S. ___ (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that when a state court makes a factual determination the federal courts must defer to its judgment so long as it is reasonable.

Glossip v. Gross, No. 14-7955, 576 U.S. ___ (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.

2015 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down eighteen per curiam opinions during its 2015 term, which began October 5, 2015 and concluded October 2, 2016.

Davis v. Ayala, 576 U.S. ___ (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.

Utah v. Strieff, 579 U.S. ___, 136 S. Ct. 2056 (2016), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States limited the scope of the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule.

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."

Cone v. Bell, 556 U.S. 449 (2009), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that a defendant was entitled to a hearing to determine whether prosecutors in his 1982 death penalty trial violated his right to due process by withholding exculpatory evidence. The defendant, Gary Cone, filed a petition for postconviction relief from a 1982 death sentence in which he argued that prosecutors violated his rights to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment by withholding police reports and witness statements that potentially could have shown that his drug addiction affected his behavior. In an opinion written by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Supreme Court held that Cone was entitled to a hearing to determine whether the prosecution's failure to disclose exculpatory evidence violated Cone's right to due process; the Court noted that "the quantity and the quality of the suppressed evidence lends support to Cone’s position at trial that he habitually used excessive amounts of drugs, that his addiction affected his behavior during his crime spree". In 2016, Gary Cone died from natural causes while still sitting on Tennessee's death row.

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.

Flowers v. Mississippi, No. 17–9572, 588 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the use of peremptory challenges to remove black jurors during a series of Mississippi criminal trials. Previously the U.S. Supreme Court held in Batson v. Kentucky that the use of peremptory challenges solely on the basis of race is unconstitutional. This case examined whether the Mississippi Supreme Court erred in how it applied Batson to this case.

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

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. (15 January 2018). "To Try to Save Client's Life, a Lawyer Ignored His Wishes. Can He Do That?". The New York Times . p. A1. Retrieved 7 July 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 (14 May 2018). "Supreme Court Rules for Death Row Inmate Betrayed by His Lawyer". The New York Times . Retrieved 7 July 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.