Nix v. Whiteside
475 U.S. 157 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of counsel is not violated when their attorney refuses to cooperate in presenting perjured testimony and threatens to disclose the perjury to the court if the client insists.
Facts:
- Emanuel Whiteside went to Calvin Love's apartment to obtain marijuana, which led to an argument between them.
- During the argument, Love directed his girlfriend to get his 'piece,' and at one point started to reach under his pillow.
- Whiteside stabbed and killed Love, later claiming he believed Love was reaching for a gun.
- Initially, Whiteside consistently told his attorney, Gary Robinson, that he had not actually seen a gun but was convinced Love possessed one.
- About a week before trial, Whiteside told Robinson for the first time that he had seen something 'metallic' in Love's hand, stating, 'If I don’t say I saw a gun, I’m dead.'
- Robinson identified this intended testimony as perjury and informed Whiteside that he could not ethically present it.
- Robinson warned Whiteside that if he insisted on testifying falsely, Robinson would have a duty to advise the court, would likely impeach the testimony, and would seek to withdraw as counsel.
- At trial, Whiteside testified that he knew Love had a gun and believed he was reaching for it, but admitted on cross-examination that he had not actually seen a gun in Love's hand.
Procedural Posture:
- Emanuel Whiteside was convicted of second-degree murder in an Iowa state trial court.
- Whiteside filed a motion for a new trial, arguing that his counsel's admonitions deprived him of a fair trial; the trial court denied the motion.
- Whiteside (appellant) appealed to the Supreme Court of Iowa, which affirmed the conviction, commending the attorney's ethical conduct.
- Whiteside filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel; the District Court denied the petition.
- Whiteside (appellant) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which reversed the District Court and directed that the writ of habeas corpus be granted.
- The State (petitioner) sought, and the U.S. Supreme Court granted, a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals.
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 criminal defense attorney violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel by refusing to allow the defendant to testify falsely, threatening to inform the court of the planned perjury, and threatening to withdraw from the case?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Burger
No. A criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not include the right to an attorney's assistance in presenting perjured testimony. An attorney's duty of loyalty to a client is limited to legitimate, lawful conduct compatible with the trial's function as a search for truth. Professional ethics rules universally prohibit attorneys from knowingly using false evidence and require them to attempt to dissuade a client from such a course. Robinson's actions—dissuading his client and threatening to disclose the planned perjury—fell well within the range of reasonable professional conduct required by the Sixth Amendment. Furthermore, under the prejudice prong of the Strickland test, a defendant cannot show legally cognizable prejudice from being prevented from committing perjury, as there is no constitutional right to testify falsely.
Concurring - Justice Brennan
No. While concurring in the judgment, this opinion argues the Court lacks the constitutional authority to establish ethical rules for lawyers in state courts. The majority's extensive discussion of professional ethics is 'pure discourse without force of law.' The case should have been resolved solely on the grounds that the defendant failed to prove the prejudice necessary to establish an ineffective assistance of counsel claim under Strickland v. Washington, as articulated in Justice Blackmun's concurrence.
Concurring - Justice Blackmun
No. Concurring in the judgment, this opinion asserts that federal habeas corpus is not the proper venue for resolving complex state-level attorney ethics questions. Following Strickland's guidance, the inquiry should begin and end with the prejudice prong, as it is dispositive. Whiteside suffered no legally cognizable prejudice because he was only deprived of the opportunity to present false testimony, which is not a protected right. Preventing a client from lying does not undermine confidence in the trial's outcome. Therefore, because there is no prejudice, there is no need to evaluate the performance of counsel or to establish a uniform federal standard for how attorneys must respond to potential client perjury.
Concurring - Justice Stevens
No. Joining Justice Blackmun's concurrence, this opinion emphasizes the difference between the clear-cut facts of this case as seen from an appellate perspective and the uncertainty trial lawyers often face. While the lawyer's actions here were proper, the Court correctly avoids setting a rigid rule for more ambiguous situations, such as when a lawyer is less certain of the client's intent or after perjury has already occurred. By deciding the case on the lack of prejudice, the Court wisely leaves these more difficult questions for a future case.
Analysis:
This case establishes a crucial boundary for the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, clarifying that this right does not encompass the right to an attorney's aid in committing perjury. The ruling solidifies the attorney's dual role as both a zealous advocate for the client and an officer of the court with a duty to the integrity of the justice system. By holding that preventing perjury cannot constitute legal 'prejudice' under the Strickland test, the Court provides a strong defense for attorneys who uphold their ethical obligations against a client's unlawful wishes. This precedent significantly impacts legal ethics and criminal defense strategy, affirming that an attorney's duty to the law and truth can supersede a client's instructions to lie.
Unlock the full brief for Nix v. Whiteside