People v. DePallo
96 N.Y.2d 437, 754 N.E.2d 751, 729 N.Y.S.2d 649 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defense attorney does not provide ineffective assistance of counsel when, after failing to dissuade a client from testifying falsely, the attorney discloses the client's intended perjury to the court, allows the client to testify in a narrative format, and refrains from referencing the perjured testimony in closing arguments.
Facts:
- The defendant and his accomplices broke into a 71-year-old man's home, where they attacked him.
- They stabbed the victim repeatedly with a knife and scissors and then bludgeoned him to death with a shovel.
- The defendant's blood was found at the scene and on the victim’s clothing, and his fingerprint was discovered in the home.
- Upon arrest, the defendant made several incriminating statements that placed him at the crime scene.
- During pretrial proceedings, the defendant admitted that he had forced one of his accomplices to participate in the crime under threat of death.
- Despite his lawyer's advice, the defendant insisted on testifying at trial.
- The defendant informed his attorney that although he was present at the homicide, he intended to testify that he was home the entire evening.
- During his trial testimony, presented in a narrative format, the defendant stated he was home on the night of the crime.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant was charged with murder, robbery, and burglary.
- In the state trial court, a jury convicted the defendant on all counts.
- The defendant (as appellant) appealed to the Appellate Division (an intermediate appellate court), claiming ineffective assistance of counsel.
- The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction.
- A Judge of the Court of Appeals (the state's highest court) granted the defendant leave to appeal.
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 provide ineffective assistance of counsel by disclosing a client's intended perjury to the court, using a narrative format for the client's testimony, and refraining from referencing the perjured testimony in closing arguments?
Opinions:
Majority - Wesley, J.
No, the attorney's actions did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. A defendant's Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of counsel does not include the right to counsel's participation in committing perjury. An attorney's duty of zealous representation is limited by an equally important duty to the court to prevent fraud. Citing Nix v. Whiteside, the court held that an attorney must first try to persuade the client not to testify falsely. If that fails, revealing the client's intention to the court is a professionally responsible and acceptable response. This approach aligns with New York’s Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits lawyers from knowingly using perjured testimony and requires them to reveal fraud upon the court. The lawyer properly balanced his duties to his client and to the justice system, and therefore, there was no deprivation of the right to effective counsel.
Analysis:
This decision affirms the principles established in Nix v. Whiteside within New York jurisprudence, providing a clear protocol for defense attorneys facing a client's intent to commit perjury. It solidifies that an attorney's ethical duty to the tribunal and the truth-seeking function of the justice system can override the duties of confidentiality and zealous advocacy in this specific context. By endorsing the 'narrative approach' and disclosure to the court, the ruling gives attorneys a safe harbor from ineffective assistance of counsel claims when they refuse to suborn perjury. This reinforces the lawyer's role as an officer of the court, not merely a hired agent for the defendant's wishes, regardless of their legality.
