Puglisi v. State
112 So. 3d 1196
| Fla. | 2013Background
- Puglisi and Ditto were charged with first-degree murder; Ditto’s testimony could exculpate Puglisi.
- Defense sought to call Ditto; judge pressed for consideration of witness strategy and potential conflicts with attorney-client privilege.
- Defense counsel sought to depose Ditto and assess admissibility of prior statements before deciding to call him.
- Trial court allowed continuances to explore Ditto’s testimony but ultimately defense rested without calling Ditto.
- Fourth District upheld defense-counsel control over witness-call decisions, displacing Cain and Blanco on this issue.
- The Supreme Court of Florida granted review to resolve whether defendant or counsel has ultimate authority over presenting witnesses when represented.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who has the ultimate authority to call witnesses? | Puglisi argues defendant should control. | Puglisi’s counsel should control as strategic decision. | Defense counsel has ultimate authority. |
| Is witness-calling a fundamental decision exclusive to the defendant? | Defendant should decide due to fundamental rights. | Counsel may decide under professional judgment. | Not a fundamental decision exclusive to defendant when represented. |
| Does Blanco recede and Cain disapprove in light of Puglisi? | Blanco protects defendant’s ultimate control. | Cain imposes defendant control when disagreement with counsel. | We recede Blanco and disapprove Cain; counsel controls. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1983) (defendant need not have every issue pressed by counsel; final control over fundamental decisions remains with counsel for trial strategy)
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1975) (when defendant proceeds with counsel, counsel manages defense; some decisions require consultation)
- Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400 (U.S. 1988) (counsel has authority to manage most defense aspects without client approval)
- Florida v. Nixon, 543 U.S. 175 (U.S. 2004) (attorney must consult on important decisions but not obtain consent to every tactical decision)
- United States v. Burke, 257 F.3d 1321 (11th Cir. 2001) (defense counsel’s strategic decisions bind the defendant; ultimate control remains with counsel during trial)
- Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72 (U.S. 1977) (recognizes defendant may have ultimate rights but allows counsel management of defense)
- Blanco v. State, 452 So.2d 520 (Fla. 1984) (held ultimate decision to call witnesses rests with defendant (receded))
- Cain v. State, 565 So.2d 875 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) (held defendant controls when there is disagreement with counsel (disapproved))
- Milligan v. State, 177 So.2d 75 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965) (early authority cited on defendant’s ultimate decision)