Guilt Admission by Killer’s Lawyer
A man on death row whose lawyer confessed his guilt while he was proclaiming innocence found a compassionate response from the U.S. Supreme Court.
The justices struggled to find the line at which attorneys are free to dispense with their client's unreasonable requests. Justice Stephen Breyer said, "Suppose the opinion were to say in this case the lawyer explicitly said to the jury he is guilty of the crime charged. That the Sixth Amendment forbids. But the rest of these complicated matters, whether it’s elements, whether it’s this, whether it’s that, we leave, at least for now, we leave to the law schools, the bars, the ethics classes and the others because we don’t want to freeze the answer into the Sixth Amendment."
McCoy claimed that he had been out of the state when the murders took place and that the police were framing him. He claimed the police killed his relative after a botched drug deal and promised to produce witnesses and evidence to prove it all.
McCoy originally had a public defender in 2009, but dismissed him because they disagreed. So he defended himself briefly. His family hired Larry English in 2010, but McCoy didn't like him either claiming that the lawyer didn't support his requests to subpoena witnesses who would corroborate his conspiracy claim.
A couple days before the trial, English told McCoy that he would concede to the jury that McCoy committed the murders and use the defense of McCoy's mental capacity. The judge blocked McCoy from firing English who told the jury in his opening statement that McCoy was guilty and that the evidence against him was overwhelming.
English's plan didn't work and the jury convicted McCoy on all three murder counts. During the penalty phase, English didn't call any mitigating witnesses and only called a psychologist who found McCoy competent to stand trial. The psychologist said that McCoy was a narcissist with "no real self inside." The jury recommended McCoy the death penalty.
Efforts for a new trial hadn't been successful. His latest attorney, Seth Waxman, argued that a lawyer cannot decide whether to concede their client's guilt. Waxman also commented that English could have used the mental state defense without conceding his client's guilt.
Waxman proposed a ruling that says attorneys cannot overrule their clients on issues related to elements of a crime. The attorney emphasized, however, the court does not have to decide the issue to rule in McCoy’s favor.
McCoy originally had a public defender in 2009, but dismissed him because they disagreed. So he defended himself briefly. His family hired Larry English in 2010, but McCoy didn't like him either claiming that the lawyer didn't support his requests to subpoena witnesses who would corroborate his conspiracy claim.
A couple days before the trial, English told McCoy that he would concede to the jury that McCoy committed the murders and use the defense of McCoy's mental capacity. The judge blocked McCoy from firing English who told the jury in his opening statement that McCoy was guilty and that the evidence against him was overwhelming.
English's plan didn't work and the jury convicted McCoy on all three murder counts. During the penalty phase, English didn't call any mitigating witnesses and only called a psychologist who found McCoy competent to stand trial. The psychologist said that McCoy was a narcissist with "no real self inside." The jury recommended McCoy the death penalty.
Efforts for a new trial hadn't been successful. His latest attorney, Seth Waxman, argued that a lawyer cannot decide whether to concede their client's guilt. Waxman also commented that English could have used the mental state defense without conceding his client's guilt.
Waxman proposed a ruling that says attorneys cannot overrule their clients on issues related to elements of a crime. The attorney emphasized, however, the court does not have to decide the issue to rule in McCoy’s favor.
Louisiana Solicitor General Elizabeth Murrill argued the case involves under an ineffective assistance of counsel standard. Murrill said the McCoy's case is baseless because the standard requires a party to show deficiency and prejudice. She also argued that McCoy was a difficult client and that English was right to not abandon a path he believed best to save McCoy’s life in favor of pursuing McCoy’s conspiracy theory. She also disputed that McCoy’s main objection was to avoid admitting to killing family members.
But Justice Elena Kagan, echoing Waxman’s earlier point, noted English’s decision ignored McCoy’s goals in the case.
Comments from Allen:
This case was heard by the United States Supreme Court, but that Court has not yet decided the issue. After an argument in the Court, the nine justices will go back into a room by themselves and vote on how they believe the case should be decided. If the justice who was originally assigned the case votes with the majority, he or she will write the opinion, it will be circulated among the other justices, and after then the remaining justices will vote on whether they ascribe to the way the opinion is written.
Basically, we will hear the final word from the Supreme Court in the next couple of months.
How do I feel about this case? I think McCoy deserves another trial. A lawyer and his client may disagree on strategy, but a lawyer in a criminal case never has the right to overrule his client if that client insists on maintaining his innocence.
If the attorney believes the client is guilty, he should discuss that with his client. If nothing else, the attorney needs to know why his belief is incorrect and he needs to ask the client what proof he has that the client's version of facts is true.
I have done this with clients, and the clients have brought facts to my attention that needed to be brought to the jury's attention.
If the client has no proof, and the facts point to the client's guilt, the attorney needs to seriously discuss working out a "damage control" plea with the prosecution.
If the client refuses to allow the negotiation of a plea, the attorney needs to consider whether he can represent someone he believes to be guilty of the crime. If not, he needs to ask the court's permission to withdraw. Otherwise, he puts the client's best evidence before the jury to see if that evidence raises a reasonable doubt as to whether the client is or is not guilty. If one juror of 12 has a reasonable doubt, and refuses to cave into the demands of the other jurors to change his vote so everybody can go home, there will be a hung jury and the client will not be convicted by that jury.
Basically, we will hear the final word from the Supreme Court in the next couple of months.
How do I feel about this case? I think McCoy deserves another trial. A lawyer and his client may disagree on strategy, but a lawyer in a criminal case never has the right to overrule his client if that client insists on maintaining his innocence.
If the attorney believes the client is guilty, he should discuss that with his client. If nothing else, the attorney needs to know why his belief is incorrect and he needs to ask the client what proof he has that the client's version of facts is true.
I have done this with clients, and the clients have brought facts to my attention that needed to be brought to the jury's attention.
If the client has no proof, and the facts point to the client's guilt, the attorney needs to seriously discuss working out a "damage control" plea with the prosecution.
If the client refuses to allow the negotiation of a plea, the attorney needs to consider whether he can represent someone he believes to be guilty of the crime. If not, he needs to ask the court's permission to withdraw. Otherwise, he puts the client's best evidence before the jury to see if that evidence raises a reasonable doubt as to whether the client is or is not guilty. If one juror of 12 has a reasonable doubt, and refuses to cave into the demands of the other jurors to change his vote so everybody can go home, there will be a hung jury and the client will not be convicted by that jury.
The problem McCoy had in this case is that he had already fired two attorneys when he asked the judge to allow him to fire English right before the trial of the case. A judge generally will not allow someone to hire another attorney, or to fire his existing attorney, immediately before a trial is to begin.
For English, though, as far as I am concerned, a lawyer has no right ever to tell a jury that his client is "guilty" unless the client directs him to do so, even if the lawyer believes it is the best course of action in a case. That, I believe, is a fundamental Constitutional right belonging to the client, and because it is a fundamental Constitutional right, this case should be overturned on the basis of inadequate representation of counsel.
I believe the Supreme Court will, for that reason alone, overturn this case and give McCoy a new trial.
For English, though, as far as I am concerned, a lawyer has no right ever to tell a jury that his client is "guilty" unless the client directs him to do so, even if the lawyer believes it is the best course of action in a case. That, I believe, is a fundamental Constitutional right belonging to the client, and because it is a fundamental Constitutional right, this case should be overturned on the basis of inadequate representation of counsel.
I believe the Supreme Court will, for that reason alone, overturn this case and give McCoy a new trial.
***********************************************************************************************************************
Allen Browning is an attorney in Idaho Falls, Idaho who handles personal injury and criminal defense. He has over 30 years of experience and handled thousands of cases. Allen handles cases from all over Idaho. Call (208) 542-2700 to set up a free consultation if you are facing legal trouble or you have been involved in an accident.
Also, check out browninglaw.net for more information about Allen and Browning Law.
Allen Browning can help with all personal injury claims including motor vehicle accidents, truck accidents, auto accidents, serious and disabling accidents, and wrongful death claims.
Allen Browning is an Idaho Falls attorney who can also help with drunk driving (DUI), traffic violations, Felony, Misdemeanor, Domestic Violence, Drug Crimes, Theft, Juvenile Crimes, battery and assault charges, Violent Crimes, and Probation/Parole Violations. He is one of the most experienced and successful criminal defense attorneys in Idaho.
Allen is able to provide his services if the incident occurs in the following Idaho Areas: American Falls, Arco, Blackfoot, Boise, Burley, Driggs, Idaho Falls, Malad City, Pocatello, Rexburg, Rigby, Salmon, St. Anthony, Twin Falls, Bannock County, Bingham County, Bonneville County, Butte County, Cassia County, Clark County, Fremont County, Jefferson County, Lemhi County, Madison County, Oneida County, Power County, Teton County, and Twin Falls County.
Sources for more information:https://www.courthousenews.com/guilt-admission-by-killers-lawyer-contested-at-high-court/
Comments
Post a Comment