Florida v. Nixon - Opinion Announcement

Argument of Speaker

Mr. Speaker: We have several opinions to announce today.

First the opinion of the Court in case No. 03-931, Florida versus Nixon will be announced by Justice Ginsburg.

Argument of Justice Ginsburg

Mr. Ginsburg: This case concerns a strategic decision defends counsel made in a capital murder trial.

Counsel's strategy was to concede at the guilt based of the trial that the defendant committed the crime by projecting candor.

The attorney believed he would be better positioned at the penalty phase to urge the jury to spare his client's life.

The Florida Supreme Court held that a concession of guilt at trial made without the defendant's expressed consent automatically ranks as prejudicial ineffective assistance of counsel necessitating a new trial.

We reverse the Florida Supreme Court's judgment.

Respondent Joe Elton Nixon, the capital murder defendant, confessed to kidnapping a woman tying her to a tree, setting her on fire while still alive and leaving her to burn to death.

The state armed with powerful evidence of Nixon’s guilt sought the death penalty.

Given the strength of the state's case Nixon’s appointed counsel thought it unwise to attempt a defendant did not commit the crime defense.

Instead counsel aimed to persuade the jury at the penalty phase of the trial that Nixon committed the murder while mentally imbalanced.

To this end the counsel would offer evidence that Nixon had a long history of emotional instability or low IQ and possible brain damage.

Counsel several times explained the strategy to Nixon, each time Nixon said nothing in reply.

Counsel proceeded with his plan strategy but despite the evidence of Nixon’s mental disabilities the jury recommended and the Trial Court imposed the death penalty.

Notably however the trial judge commended counsel performance describing the tactics Nixon’s attorney employed as an excellent analysis of the reality of his case.

The Florida Supreme Court viewed the case differently.

That court regarded counsel's concession of Nixon’s guilt as the functional equivalent of the guilty plea.

Consent to a guilty plea can not be inferred from silence the Florida Supreme Court correctly observed, similarly a concession of guilt at trial that court held required the defendants express consent.

We disagree with the latter assessment.

Counsel must consult with his client but when the client is unresponsive counsel must be free to follow his own professional judgment.

The Florida Court incorrectly equated a guilty plea to concession a guilt at trial.

Unlike a defendant guilty who has pleaded guilty Nixon retained the constitutional rights that in here in the criminal preceding one such right counsel could object to items of evidence attended by the prosecution.

The state was oblige to present during the guilt phase proof convincing the jury beyond the reasonable doubt on every element of the charged defense that aggressive evidence would as be distanced from the penalty phase enabling the defense to concentrate that portion of the trial on mitigating factors.

The Florida Courts erroneous equations of counsel's concessions strategy to a guilty plea led it to apply the wrong standard in evaluating counsel's effectiveness.

That court first presumed deficient performance and then applied a presumption of prejudice derived from our decision in United States v. Cronic.

But in Cronic we reserved the presumption of prejudice for situations in which counsel has entirely fail to function as the client's advocate.

On the record considered by the Florida Supreme Court counsel's concession of guilt scarcely ranks as a failure of that order.

The Florida Court should have employed the generally applicable standard this Court stated in Strickland v. Washington; it should have asked did counsel's representation fall outside the balance of reasonable professional conduct.

Commentators have observed that when the evidence is overwhelming and the crime heinous, counsel who attempts an implausible defense may jeopardize his client's chances for a life sentence in lieu of the death penalty.

Reknowned advocate Clarence Darrow successfully employed a similar strategy as counsel for the youthful cold-blooded killers Richard Loeb and Nathan Leopold.

As Justice Stevens recalled at oral argument in this case Darrow's clients did not expressly consent to what he did but he saved their lives.

In sum, when counsel informs a capital defendant of the strategy counsel believes to be in the defendant’s best interest.

Counsel's strategic choice is not impeded by any blanket rule demanding the defendant's explicit consent instead taking account of the evidence bearing on the defendant’s guilt if counsel's strategy was reasonable that is the end of the matter.

No tenable claim of ineffective assistance would remain.

The Chief Justice took no part in the decision of this case.

All other members of this Court have joined in the opinion.