McCoy v. Louisiana, 138 S. Ct. 1500

Background

Robert McCoy was tried in Louisiana for three first-degree murders; he consistently maintained he was innocent and claimed an alibi/conspiracy theory.
Retained counsel Larry English, concluding the evidence was overwhelming, announced to the jury at guilt phase that McCoy "committed three murders" and pursued a diminished‑mental‑state/mercy strategy to avoid the death penalty.
McCoy repeatedly and vocally objected pretrial and during trial to any admission of guilt; he nevertheless testified maintaining innocence.
Jury convicted McCoy of three counts of first‑degree murder and returned three death sentences; the Louisiana Supreme Court upheld the conviction, ruling counsel could concede guilt despite McCoy’s objections.
The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari and held that counsel may not concede a client’s guilt over an express and persistent client objection; the error was deemed structural and required a new trial.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (McCoy)	Defendant's Argument (Louisiana/English)	Held
May defense counsel concede the defendant’s guilt over the defendant’s express objection?	McCoy: No—client has autonomy to set defense objective (insist on innocence).	State/English: Counsel may concede if strategically necessary to avoid death.	Held: No—client controls defense objective; counsel may not admit guilt over explicit client objection.
Does Florida v. Nixon permit counsel’s concession absent explicit consent?	McCoy: Nixon is distinguishable—there defendant was passive.	State: Nixon allows concession when defendant doesn’t object.	Held: Nixon inapplicable—Nixon involved an unresponsive defendant; active objection here controls.
Do ethical rules (e.g., prohibition on suborning perjury) require counsel to concede?	McCoy: No evidence McCoy intended perjury; ethical rules don’t force concession.	State: Presenting the alibi might implicate lawyer in perjury; concession avoided that risk.	Held: Nix v. Whiteside distinguishes cases of avowed perjury; here counsel’s disbelief of client is not a perjury admission requirement; Louisiana identified no rule forcing counsel to admit guilt.
Remedy: If counsel admits guilt over objection, must defendant show prejudice under Strickland?	McCoy: Violation is of autonomy and structural; no prejudice showing required.	State: Apply Strickland prejudice framework.	Held: Structural error—violates autonomy right; no prejudice showing required; new trial ordered.

Key Cases Cited

Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (recognizing right of defendant to control defense and to self‑represent)
Florida v. Nixon, 543 U.S. 175 (permitting concession where defendant was unresponsive and did not object)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective‑assistance framework requiring prejudice)
Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U.S. 157 (lawyer may refuse to present testimony known by counsel to be perjurious)
McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168 (self‑representation right is binary; deprivation cannot be harmless)
United States v. Gonzalez‑Lopez, 548 U.S. 140 (right to counsel of choice is structural)
Weaver v. Massachusetts, 582 U.S. _ (2017) (deprivation of certain autonomy rights protects fundamental choice; structural‑error framework applied)