McCoy v. Louisiana
138 S. Ct. 1500 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Sixth Amendment guarantees a criminal defendant the personal right to decide the objective of their defense, which includes the right to insist on maintaining innocence and to prevent counsel from conceding guilt.
Facts:
- Robert McCoy was charged with three counts of first-degree murder for the killings of his estranged wife's mother, stepfather, and son.
- McCoy consistently maintained his innocence, asserting that he was out of state during the killings and that the victims were murdered by corrupt police officers in a drug deal gone wrong.
- McCoy's parents retained attorney Larry English to represent him in the capital case.
- English concluded that the evidence against McCoy was overwhelming and that the best strategy to avoid a death sentence was to concede McCoy's commission of the killings during the guilt phase of the trial.
- Two weeks before trial, English informed McCoy of his plan to concede guilt.
- McCoy was furious, explicitly forbade English from making any concession of guilt, and insisted that the sole objective of his defense was to prove his innocence and achieve an acquittal.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Louisiana charged Robert McCoy in state trial court with three counts of first-degree murder and gave notice of its intent to seek the death penalty.
- McCoy pleaded not guilty.
- The trial court denied McCoy's pre-trial motion to discharge his counsel, Larry English, and also denied English's motion to withdraw.
- During the trial's guilt phase, over McCoy's explicit in-court objection, English conceded to the jury that McCoy had killed the victims.
- A jury found McCoy guilty on all three counts of first-degree murder.
- Following a penalty phase where English again conceded McCoy's guilt, the jury returned verdicts for the death penalty on all three counts.
- On direct appeal, the Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding that counsel had the authority to concede guilt as a matter of trial strategy.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted McCoy's petition for a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a defense attorney's unilateral decision to concede a defendant's guilt at trial, over the defendant's express and repeated objection, violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to assistance of counsel?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Ginsburg
Yes. A defense attorney's decision to concede guilt over the defendant's express objection violates the Sixth Amendment. The right to counsel is a right to 'assistance,' and the defendant retains personal autonomy over fundamental decisions relating to their defense. These core decisions include whether to plead guilty, waive a jury trial, testify, appeal, and, as established here, determine the ultimate objective of the defense. While counsel manages trial strategy, the client alone decides whether the objective is to maintain innocence or to concede guilt in hopes of mercy. When counsel usurps this decision, it is a violation of the defendant's autonomy and constitutes a structural error, requiring a new trial without any showing of prejudice.
Dissenting - Justice Alito
No. English did not violate McCoy's rights because he did not concede guilt to first-degree murder; rather, he conceded the act of killing (actus reus) while vigorously arguing that McCoy lacked the required specific intent (mens rea) for the capital offense. Faced with overwhelming evidence and an incredible defense theory from his client, English made a reasonable strategic choice to focus on the only viable path to avoiding the death penalty. The Court's decision addresses a factual scenario not present here and creates a new, rarely applicable right that undermines an attorney's ability to provide effective counsel in dire circumstances.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the division of authority between a criminal defendant and their counsel, elevating the choice to maintain innocence to a fundamental right reserved for the client. It establishes that a defendant's autonomy over the core objective of their defense trumps the lawyer's strategic assessment, even if the client's choice seems counterproductive. By classifying the violation as a 'structural error,' the Court underscores its gravity, meaning that a defendant whose lawyer concedes guilt against their will is automatically entitled to a new trial without needing to prove the concession affected the verdict. This ruling may impact defense strategies in capital cases where a client irrationally insists on an unwinnable innocence defense.
