People Of Mi V Richard Edward Klungle, 168010

Klungle was convicted of trespassing and two counts of resisting or obstructing a police officer after an eviction-related confrontation at his grandmother’s former home. 1
At trial, Klungle testified he believed he had a right to remain in the home and did not feel he was trespassing. 2
During closing argument, defense counsel changed strategy and conceded that Klungle trespassed, while asking the jury to acquit on the resisting-or-obstructing charges. 3
At a posttrial hearing, counsel admitted he never told Klungle of the planned concession, while Klungle said he had maintained innocence and would have opposed the concession. 4
The trial court and Court of Appeals rejected Klungle’s Sixth Amendment challenge and upheld the convictions. 5
The Michigan Supreme Court reversed, holding counsel’s unilateral concession violated Klungle’s autonomy right and required a new trial. 6

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does McCoy apply in noncapital cases? 7	Klungle said McCoy protects a defendant’s innocence objective in any criminal case.	The prosecution suggested McCoy may be limited to capital cases.	McCoy applies beyond capital cases. 8
Did counsel’s concession violate Klungle’s autonomy right? 9	Klungle maintained innocence before trial and was never consulted before counsel conceded guilt.	Lyons acted reasonably because Klungle would not communicate and never expressly forbade the concession.	Yes; counsel could not unilaterally concede guilt. 10
Was a contemporaneous objection required? 11	Klungle need not have objected in real time because counsel never consulted him and the court silenced him.	The prosecution argued McCoy requires an intransigent trial objection.	No; no contemporaneous objection was required. 12
What is the remedy for the McCoy violation? 13	The structural error infected the whole trial, including the resisting-or-obstructing counts.	Any error should not undo the other convictions because counsel contested those charges.	All convictions were vacated and a new trial ordered. 14

McCoy v. Louisiana, 584 U.S. 414 (U.S. 2018) (defendant controls the objective of maintaining innocence; counsel may not concede guilt over that choice; structural error 15)
Florida v. Nixon, 543 U.S. 175 (U.S. 2004) (counsel may concede guilt after consulting an unresponsive client 16)
Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (U.S. 1963) (Sixth Amendment right to counsel applies in state prosecutions 17)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (duty to consult on important strategic decisions 18)
Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (U.S. 1991) (structural errors affect the framework of the trial 19)
People v. Moreno, 491 Mich. 38 (Mich. 2012) (lawfulness of police conduct is an element in resisting-or-obstructing cases 20)
People v. Davis, 509 Mich. 52 (Mich. 2022) (structural error may still be subject to preservation rules 21)
People v. Beck, 504 Mich. 605 (Mich. 2019) (de novo review of constitutional questions 22)