The United States Supreme Court has grant­ed a new tri­al to Louisiana death-row pris­on­er Robert McCoy (pic­tured), whose lawyer admit­ted his guilt despite McCoy’s ​“ada­ment” and ​“vocif­er­ous” insis­tence that he was inno­cent. Facing what coun­sel believed was over­whelm­ing evi­dence of guilt and hop­ing to per­suade the jury to spare McCoy’s life, defense lawyer Larry English told jurors his client had ​“com­mit­ted three mur­ders.… [H]e’s guilty.” In a 6 – 3 opin­ion for the Court on May 14, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote: ​“With indi­vid­ual lib­er­ty — and, in cap­i­tal cas­es, life — at stake, it is the defendant’s pre­rog­a­tive, not counsel’s, to decide on the objec­tive of his defense: to admit guilt in the hope of gain­ing mer­cy at the sen­tenc­ing stage, or to main­tain his inno­cence, leav­ing it to the State to prove his guilt beyond a rea­son­able doubt.” Justices Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch dis­sent­ed. At tri­al, McCoy’s defense coun­sel informed the jury that it could reach no oth­er con­clu­sion but that McCoy — who was charged with mur­der­ing the son, moth­er, and step­fa­ther of his estranged wife — ​“was the cause of these indi­vid­u­als’ death,” even though McCoy had con­sis­tent­ly main­tained his inno­cence and repeat­ed­ly object­ed to counsel’s strat­e­gy. The tri­al court denied McCoy’s objec­tions. On appeal, the Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the con­vic­tion, rul­ing that a lawyer has the author­i­ty to con­cede guilt against the wish­es of his client because coun­sel ​“rea­son­ably believed that admit­ting guilt” would be the ​“best chance” to avoid a death ver­dict. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed. Justice Ginsburg explained that ​“the ​‘assis­tance’ of coun­sel” guar­an­teed by the Sixth Amendment does not require a defen­dant to ​“sur­ren­der con­trol entire­ly to coun­sel. … Some deci­sions,” she wrote, ​“are reserved for the client — notably, whether to plead guilty, waive the right to a jury tri­al, tes­ti­fy in one’s own behalf, and for­go an appeal.” Here, the Court found that McCoy’s objec­tive — to main­tain that he was inno­cent of mur­der­ing his fam­i­ly — was irrec­on­cil­able with tri­al counsel’s objec­tive — to avoid a death sen­tence. ​“When a client express­ly asserts that the objec­tive of ​‘his defence’ is to main­tain inno­cence of the charged crim­i­nal acts,” the Court held, ​“his lawyer must abide by that objec­tive and may not over­ride it by con­ced­ing guilt.” The dis­sent dis­agreed that tri­al coun­sel had con­ced­ed McCoy’s guilt by telling the jury that his client killed the vic­tims, say­ing that coun­sel had stressed that McCoy lacked the intent to kill nec­es­sary for first-degree mur­der and that McCoy there­fore was guilty only of sec­ond-degree mur­der. It also min­i­mized the need for the rul­ing, describ­ing the prob­lem as ​“a rare plant that blooms every decade or so” and one that was unlike­ly to recur. In April 2017, the Louisiana Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers had filed a brief sup­port­ing McCoy’s peti­tion, point­ing to a pat­tern of cas­es in which Louisiana state courts had resolved dis­agree­ments between cap­i­tal defen­dants and their lawyers in what­ev­er man­ner had been most detri­men­tal to the defen­dant. ​“Rather than a prin­ci­pled and con­sis­tent com­mit­ment to the auton­o­my and dig­ni­ty of cap­i­tal defen­dants,” the defense lawyers wrote, ​“the Louisiana Supreme Court has adopt­ed a set of rules that ame­lio­rates always to the ben­e­fit of the state, and nev­er to the defen­dant.” In a state­ment released to the media, McCoy’s lawyer, Richard Bourke, said ​“The rul­ing restores in Louisiana the con­sti­tu­tion­al right of every indi­vid­ual to present their defense to a jury. While rare in the rest of the coun­try, … Mr. McCoy’s was one of ten death sen­tences imposed in Louisiana since 2000 that have been taint­ed with the same flaw.”

(Mark Sherman, Supreme Court rules for inmate whose lawyer con­ced­ed guilt, Associated Press, May 14, 2018; Lawrence Hurley, U.S. high court throws out Louisiana death row inmate’s con­vic­tion, Reuters, May 14, 2018; Statement from Attorney for Robert McCoy in Response to Today’s SCOTUS Ruling in McCoy v. Louisiana, May 14, 2018) Read the Opinion. See U.S. Supreme Court and Representation.

Citation Guide