State v. Wiplinger

Supreme Court of Minnesota
1984 Minn. LEXIS 1245, 343 N.W.2d 858 (1984)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A criminal defense attorney may not admit a client's guilt to the jury, either expressly or impliedly, without first obtaining the client's consent; doing so constitutes reversible error regardless of the strength of the evidence against the defendant.

Facts:

On February 26, 1982, a 10-year-old girl was abducted and sexually assaulted by a man while walking home from school.
The victim identified the defendant, an insurance salesman, via a photograph and a lineup.
Prior to trial, the defense attorney attempted to persuade the defendant to plead guilty to the sex charge in exchange for leniency, but the defendant refused.
During trial, the defense attorney cross-examined the victim by asking questions using the defendant's name, such as 'Mr. Wiplinger didn't threaten you in any way, did he?' and asking if 'Mr. Wiplinger' was gentle.
The attorney also cross-examined the victim's grandmother, asking if 'Mr. Wiplinger' used real force.
The defendant immediately objected to his attorney's conduct in court, claiming the attorney was implying guilt against his wishes.

Procedural Posture:

The State charged the defendant with kidnapping and criminal sexual conduct in the first degree in district court.
During the trial, the defendant moved for a mistrial based on his attorney's cross-examination performance; the trial court denied the motion.
The defendant replaced his private counsel with a public defender for the remainder of the trial.
The jury found the defendant guilty as charged.
The district court sentenced the defendant to 54 months in prison.
The defendant appealed the judgment of conviction to the Supreme Court of Minnesota.

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 defendant have the right to a new trial when their defense counsel impliedly admits guilt during cross-examination without the defendant's consent?

Opinions:

Majority - Amdahl

Yes, a defendant is entitled to a new trial because the decision to admit guilt is a fundamental right that belongs exclusively to the accused. The court reasoned that while the attorney did not expressly state 'my client is guilty,' the cross-examination questions regarding whether 'Mr. Wiplinger' was gentle or used force implied that the defendant was the perpetrator, merely disputing the nature of the assault rather than the identity. Since the defendant objected immediately, it was clear he did not consent to this strategy. The court held that even though the evidence against the defendant was strong, the unauthorized admission of guilt by counsel breaches a fundamental principle of criminal defense.

Dissenting - Kelley

No, the attorney's conduct did not amount to a prejudicial deprivation of effective counsel warranting a new trial. The dissent argued that the evidence against the defendant, including eyewitness identification and hotel records, was overwhelming. The dissent contended that using the defendant's name during cross-examination was merely a tactical error, not an implicit confession. Furthermore, the dissent argued that even if it were an error, it should be considered 'harmless beyond a reasonable doubt' because the outcome of the trial would have been the same regardless of the attorney's phrasing.

Analysis:

This case underscores the allocation of authority between attorney and client in criminal defense. While attorneys generally control trial tactics (such as which witnesses to call), the decision to plead guilty—or to admit guilt in front of a jury—is reserved strictly for the defendant. This ruling prevents attorneys from unilaterally deciding that a 'damage control' strategy (admitting guilt to seek a lighter sentence) is in the client's best interest if the client maintains their innocence. It establishes a bright-line rule in Minnesota that implied admissions of guilt without consent are structural errors that cannot be cured by the strength of the prosecution's case.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: State v. Wiplinger (1984)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"