Results 1 to 5 of 5
Thanks Tree5Thanks
  • 2 Post By Ian Jeffrey
  • 2 Post By soupnazi
  • 1 Post By Ian Jeffrey

Thread: Supreme Court rules for defendant in capital murder plea case

  1. #1
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    66,612
    Thanks
    34212

    From
    Vulcan, down the street from Darth Vader

    Supreme Court rules for defendant in capital murder plea case

    Supreme Court rules for defendant in capital murder plea case

    On Monday, a divided Supreme Court said a court in a Louisiana murder case couldn’t accept a lawyer’s admission of his own client’s guilt over his client’s objections.

    In McCoy v. Louisiana, the Court considered a basic question about the proper role of attorneys in murder cases. Robert McCoy originally filed his own appeal directly to the Supreme Court about two questions related to his conviction on three murder charges. McCoy was sentenced to death in the case.

    McCoy was accused of killing three people in 2008 in a dispute with his then-wife and he was arrested after fleeing to Idaho. McCoy clashed with public defenders, briefly represented himself, and then hired an attorney, Larry English, to argue his case.

    The client and his attorney disagreed about McCoy’s defense strategy, and English told the court he had doubts about McCoy’s competency due to “severe mental and emotional issues. During trial, English introduced a defense that conceded McCoy’s role in the killings as a tactic to avoid the death penalty, by stressing McCoy’s mental condition. Under testimony, McCoy insisted he wasn’t guilty and he was the victim of a conspiracy. The jury found McCoy guilty of three first-degree murder counts. The jury then recommended the death penalty.

    In the 6-3 decision, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that the trial court should not have accepted English’s concession of guilt for his client.



    A lawyer should know better than to make certain decisions, despite having the general power to determine strategy. Three basic things the defendant always retains the right to do: whether to plead or go to trial; whether to go to trial in front of a jury or the court; and whether to testify.
    Thanks from Wonderer and Madeline

  2. #2
    Bad Policy Good Politics DebateDrone's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    37,899
    Thanks
    33002

    From
    Border Fence
    Is the state re-trying him the next option?

  3. #3
    Established Member soupnazi's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    6,761
    Thanks
    1298

    From
    Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    Supreme Court rules for defendant in capital murder plea case

    On Monday, a divided Supreme Court said a court in a Louisiana murder case couldn’t accept a lawyer’s admission of his own client’s guilt over his client’s objections.

    In McCoy v. Louisiana, the Court considered a basic question about the proper role of attorneys in murder cases. Robert McCoy originally filed his own appeal directly to the Supreme Court about two questions related to his conviction on three murder charges. McCoy was sentenced to death in the case.

    McCoy was accused of killing three people in 2008 in a dispute with his then-wife and he was arrested after fleeing to Idaho. McCoy clashed with public defenders, briefly represented himself, and then hired an attorney, Larry English, to argue his case.

    The client and his attorney disagreed about McCoy’s defense strategy, and English told the court he had doubts about McCoy’s competency due to “severe mental and emotional issues. During trial, English introduced a defense that conceded McCoy’s role in the killings as a tactic to avoid the death penalty, by stressing McCoy’s mental condition. Under testimony, McCoy insisted he wasn’t guilty and he was the victim of a conspiracy. The jury found McCoy guilty of three first-degree murder counts. The jury then recommended the death penalty.

    In the 6-3 decision, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that the trial court should not have accepted English’s concession of guilt for his client.



    A lawyer should know better than to make certain decisions, despite having the general power to determine strategy. Three basic things the defendant always retains the right to do: whether to plead or go to trial; whether to go to trial in front of a jury or the court; and whether to testify.
    So essentially the attorney decided to ignore the clients wishes and defend the client with a specific strategy wish the client objected to.

    It makes sense that the court would rule in favor of the defendant on that issue.

    The question now becomes will the state try the defendant again and allow him to defend himself with a conspiracy tale. I can;t really see that working so if the state moves ahead with another trial it seems the defendant will be sunk anyways.
    Thanks from Ian Jeffrey and Madeline

  4. #4
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    66,612
    Thanks
    34212

    From
    Vulcan, down the street from Darth Vader
    Yes, a retrial would be the next step, or so the article represents Justice Ginsburg's opinion to state:

    “The trial court’s allowance of English’s admission of McCoy’s guilt despite McCoy’s insistent objections was incompatible with the Sixth Amendment. Because the error was structural, a new trial is the required corrective,” Ginsburg said.
    Thanks from Madeline

  5. #5
    Veteran Member Madeline's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    57,905
    Thanks
    33512

    From
    Cleveland, Ohio
    Assuming this defendant appears to be genuinely, severely mentally ill, he presents a real challenge to his defense lawyer. People like Aileen Wornous, Ted Kazinsky, Jeffrey Dalmer, etc. have all rejected their lawyer's advice to raise the insanity defense.

    But how can a mentally ill defendant make a knowing, informed, voluntary decision to reject that defense?

    I think SCOTUS decided this case correctly, but this is not a simple question. Not IMO, anyway.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 16th May 2016, 11:00 AM
  2. Replies: 19
    Last Post: 30th June 2015, 05:31 AM
  3. Supreme Court rules on affirmative action case
    By bajisima in forum Current Events
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 25th June 2013, 05:24 PM
  4. Supreme Court rules in favor of Monsanto in seed case
    By bajisima in forum Current Events
    Replies: 80
    Last Post: 23rd May 2013, 04:25 PM
  5. Supreme Court rules against EPA on wetlands.
    By roberthughey in forum Current Events
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 22nd March 2012, 06:20 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed