Florida v. Nixon

8 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. Partial defense win! COA orders hearing on sec 974.06 ineffective assistance claims

    Wisconsin State Public DefenderJune 14, 2020

    The court of appeals held that McCoy did not apply to Townsend’s case because when asked which verdict he wanted the jury to take he said he wasn’t sure. This supposedly made his case like Florida v. Nixon, 543 U.S. 175 (2004), where counsel tried to discuss trial strategy with Nixon before trial but Nixon was unresponsive. Opinion, ¶38.

  2. Who controls, you or the client

    Law Office of Phillip CavePhilip D. CaveJune 18, 2018

    A defendant, this Court affirmed, has “the ultimate authority” to determine “whether to plead guilty, waive a jury, testify in his or her own behalf, or take an appeal.” Concerning those decisions, an attorney must both consult with the defendant and obtain consent to the recommended course of action.Florida v. Nixon, 543 U.S. 175, 187 (2004)(citations omitted).Defense counsel “undoubtedly has a duty to consult with the client regarding ‘important decisions,’ including questions of overarching defense strategy.”

  3. Defense win in SCOTUS casts doubt on SCOW decision permitting counsel to concede client’s guilt

    Wisconsin State Public DefenderMay 15, 2018

    U. S. Const., Amdt. 6 (emphasis added; see ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.2(a) (2016) (a “lawyer shall abide by a client’s decisions concerning the objectives of the representation”). (Slip op. 7-8).The majority distinguished McCoy’s situation from Florida v. Nixon, 543 U.S. 175 (2004), where trial counsel discussed with his client a trial strategy that involved admitting guilt but the client was “generally unresponsive.” In Nixon, trial counsel did not negate his client’s autonomy by overriding his defense objective because the client never asserted an objective.

  4. SCOTUS will review concessions of guilt by trial counsel

    Wisconsin State Public DefenderOctober 2, 2017

    The Supreme Court has held that when trial counsel informs the defendant of that he believes a concession of guilt is a reasonable strategy and is in the defendant’s best interest “and the defendant is unresponsive,” trial counsel may reasonably proceed to concede guilt. Florida v. Nixon, 543 U.S. 175 (2004). The Louisiana court relied on Nixon as support for its conclusion, 218 So.3d at 571-72, but the difference between an “unresponsive” defendant and McCoy, who repeatedly made his objection known, is striking.

  5. Attorney-Client Issues - Ineffective Assistance of Counsel -- Death Penalty Cases

    Garland, Samuel & Loeb, P.C.Don SamuelSeptember 1, 2015

    Rompilla v. Beard, 125 S.Ct. 2456 (2005):Death penalty counsel’s failure to investigate the circumstances of the defendant’s prior conviction, (such as the file in the clerk’s office) which was used as an aggravating factor in the penalty phase (and which had loads of mitigating evidence present in the clerk’s file) was ineffective and prejudicial. The file of the prior case contained information about the defendant’s childhood and mental health problems.Florida v. Nixon, 543 U.S. 175 (2004)The Supreme Court held that an attorney may concede the defendant’s guilt during the guilt-innocence portion of a death penalty trial even without the express approval of the defendant. This concession of guilt (prompted by a strategy of prevailing during the sentencing phase) is not the functional equivalent of a guilty plea, which would require a full waiver by the defendant.

  6. Gideon’s 50th anniversary deserves only two cheers

    Atlanta's John Marshall Law SchoolTimothy O'NeillAugust 14, 2013

    The U.S. Supreme Court has clearly identified four rights as fundamental: “whether to plead guilty, waive a jury, testify in his or her own behalf or take an appeal.” Florida v. Nixon, 543 U.S. 175 (2004). Nixon makes it clear that the defendant must personally waive the right voluntarily, intelligently and knowingly.

  7. Can a Defense Counsel Validly Concede Guilt to One or More Counts Over the Defendant’s Objection?

    Easton Thompson Kasperek Shiffrin LLPDecember 13, 2010

    That position was recently rejected by the Court in Washington v Poole (_F Supp_, 2010 WL 3910176 (WDNY 10/6/10), in denying a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in which Mr. Washington urged that he was denied effective assistance of counsel when his counsel, over Mr. Washington’s objection, conceded Washington was involved in the robbery but disputed whether the handguns used during the robbery were “loaded and operable” so as to make Washington guilty of robbery in the first degree. The Court explained that In Florida v Nixon, 543 US 175 (2004), the Supreme Court indicated that while defense counsel has an obligation to explain to the defendant a proposed strategy of conceding guilt at the guilt phase of a capital trial, counsel has no further obligation to obtain the defendant's express consent to this strategy. Id. at 189.

  8. Counsel – Ineffective Assistance – Deficient Performance – Conceding Guilt on One of Multiple Counts

    Wisconsin State Public DefenderFebruary 22, 2003

    Such an implication — though it might be read into the decision — would be most unwise. The Supreme Court subsequently upheld a strategic course by counsel to concede guilt in the opening phase of a capital trial in the hope of obtaining a favorable outcome at the penalty stage, Florida v. Nixon, 543 U.S. 175 (2004), but that case may be read to require consultation with if not exactly personal assent by the client. The holding’s narrowness should be kept in mind (emphasis supplied): “When counsel informs the defendant of the strategy counsel believes to be in the defendant’s best interest and the defendant is unresponsive, counsel’s strategic choice is not impeded by any blanket rule demanding the defendant’s explicit consent.”