Florida v. Nixon

Florida v. Nixon, 543 U.S. 175 (2004), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that defense counsel's failure to obtain the defendant's express consent to a strategy of conceding guilt in a capital trial does not automatically render counsel's performance deficient.^[1][2][3][4]

Nixon was arrested for a murder. Questioned by the police, Nixon described in graphic detail how he had kidnapped and killed the victim. After gathering evidence of his guilt, the state indicted Nixon for first-degree murder and related crimes. Assistant public defender Corin, assigned to represent Nixon, filed a plea of not guilty and deposed all of the State's potential witnesses. Satisfied that Nixon's guilt was not subject to reasonable dispute, Corin commenced plea negotiations, but the prosecutors refused to recommend a sentence other than death. Faced with the inevitability of going to trial on a capital charge, and a strong case for the prosecution, Corin concluded that his best course would be to concede Nixon's guilt, thereby preserving credibility for penalty phase evidence of Nixon's mental instability, and for defense pleas to spare Nixon's life. Corin several times attempted to explain this strategy to Nixon, but Nixon remained unresponsive, never verbally approving or protesting the proposed strategy. Overall, Nixon gave Corin very little assistance or direction in preparing the case.^[1]

When trial began, Nixon engaged in disruptive behavior and absented himself from most of the proceedings. In his opening statement, Corin acknowledged Nixon's guilt and urged the jury to focus on the penalty phase. During the state's case in chief, Corin objected to the introduction of crime scene photographs as unduly prejudicial, cross-examined witnesses for clarification, and contested several aspects of the jury instructions. In his closing argument, Corin again conceded Nixon's guilt, declaring that he hoped to persuade the jury during the penalty phase that Nixon should not be sentenced to death. The jury found Nixon guilty on all counts. At the penalty phase, Corin argued to the jury that Nixon was not "an intact human being" and had committed the murder while afflicted with multiple mental disabilities. Corin called as witnesses relatives and friends who described Nixon's childhood emotional troubles and his erratic behavior preceding the murder. Corin also presented expert testimony concerning Nixon's antisocial personality, history of emotional instability and psychiatric care, low IQ, and possible brain damage. In his closing argument, Corin emphasized Nixon's youth, the psychiatric evidence, and the jury's discretion to consider any mitigating circumstances; urged that, if not sentenced to death, Nixon would never be released; maintained that the death penalty was not appropriate for a person with Nixon's impairments; and asked the jury to spare Nixon's life. The jury recommended, and the trial court imposed, the death penalty.^[1]

The Florida Supreme Court ultimately reversed, holding that a defense attorney's concession that his client committed murder, made without the defendant's express consent, automatically ranks as prejudicial ineffective assistance of counsel necessitating a new trial under the standard announced in United States v. Cronic. Corin's concession, according to that court, was the functional equivalent of a guilty plea in that it allowed the prosecution's guilt-phase case to proceed essentially without opposition. Under Boykin v. Alabama, consent to a guilty plea cannot be inferred from silence; similarly, the Florida court stated, a concession of guilt at trial requires a defendant's affirmative, explicit acceptance, without which counsel's performance is presumably inadequate. While acknowledging that Nixon was very disruptive and uncooperative at trial and that Corin's strategy may have been in Nixon's best interest, the court nevertheless declared that silent acquiescence is not enough: Counsel conceding a defendant's guilt is inevitably ineffective if the defendant does not expressly approve counsel's course.

The Supreme Court granted certiorari.^[1]

The Supreme Court issued an opinion on December 13, 2004.^[1]

• Text of Florida v. Nixon, 543 U.S. 175 (2004) is available from: Justia

This article incorporates written opinion of a United States federal court. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the text is in the public domain.