Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 23

Thread: Robert LeRoy McCoy - Louisiana

  1. #11
    Administrator Moh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    13,014
    On September 28, 2017, the US Supreme Court GRANTED McCoy's certiorari petition.

    Lower Ct: Supreme Court of Louisiana
    Case Numbers: (2014-KA-1449)
    Decision Date: October 19, 2016
    Rehearing Denied: December 6, 2016

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/search....c/16-8255.html

  2. #12
    Administrator Moh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    13,014
    Oral argument in McCoy's appeal before the United States Supreme Court has been set for January 17, 2018.

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/search....c/16-8255.html

  3. #13
    Senior Member CnCP Legend CharlesMartel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    FRANCE
    Posts
    3,073
    Supreme Court to hear case of lawyer who defied client in murder trial

    By JON SCHUPPE
    NBCNews.com

    On trial for his life, Robert McCoy claimed he was the innocent victim of a police conspiracy ─ despite a mountain of evidence that he had killed three members of his estranged wife's family in northwestern Louisiana.

    But his lawyer, Larry English, saw the case as unwinnable, and decided to focus on sparing McCoy from execution. English outlined his strategy: admit guilt from the start, then ask the jury for mercy.

    McCoy refused. English insisted. They argued, behind closed doors, before the judge and in front of the jury. McCoy tried to fire English, but the judge said it was too late. In August 2011, the jury convicted McCoy of first-degree murder, and sentenced him to die.

    More than six years later, McCoy sits on Louisiana's death row and is still fighting. He wants a new trial, arguing that his constitutional rights as a criminal defendant ─ specifically, the ability to mount his own defense ─ were violated. On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments on the case, which explores the boundaries of two tenets of the American justice system: the adversarial relationship between the government and the accused, and a defendant's ability to make decisions about his fate.

    The plan English embraced is not uncommon in today's courtrooms. Defense lawyers often choose to concede that their client is guilty to avoid a worse outcome. It happens often in death penalty cases, when the defendant appears likely to be convicted, and the same jury charged with deciding guilt also chooses punishment. In those cases, the lawyer may decide that it would appear insincere to argue in the first phase that the defendant didn't commit the crime, then turn around and ask for leniency.

    "The stakes get really high when what you're facing is a likely guilty verdict with a likely death penalty, especially when you say 'I didn't do it,'" said Ernie Lewis, executive director of the National Association for Public Defense.

    Typically the client goes along with the plan.

    McCoy, accused of fatally shooting his estranged wife's mother, stepfather and teen-age son in May 2008, wanted nothing to do with it.

    English, who had been hired by McCoy's parents and was not certified to try capital cases, told the Bossier Parish jury in his opening statement that "Mr. McCoy committed these crimes." English called his client "crazy" and argued for a lighter verdict of second-degree murder.

    McCoy interrupted.

    "Your Honor, this is unconstitutional for you to keep an attorney on my case when this attorney is completely selling me out," he told the judge.

    The trial continued. McCoy defied English and took the stand in his own defense, testifying that he was out of state at the time of the murders and blaming a police-led drug ring for committing them. Then English gave his closing arguments, saying that McCoy was guilty, but only of second-degree murder, because of mental deficiencies.

    Later, after McCoy was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to die, English reflected on his decisions in an affidavit. He said he'd become "convinced that the evidence against Robert McCoy was overwhelming" and that his client was paranoid and delusional.

    "I felt that as long as I was his attorney of record it was my ethical duty to do what I thought was best to save his life even though what he wanted me to do was to get him acquitted in the guilt phase," English said.

    McCoy set about appealing his conviction, claiming he was denied his constitutional rights to the assistance of counsel and due process. The Louisiana Supreme Court ruled against him.

    "Given the circumstances of this crime and the overwhelming evidence incriminating the defendant, admitting guilt in an attempt to avoid the imposition of the death penalty appears to constitute reasonable trial strategy," the Louisiana justices ruled.

    The Louisiana court relied in part on a 2002 U.S. Supreme Court ruling on a Florida case that permitted a concession of guilt when a defendant was unresponsive to his lawyer's questions. But it did not address the situation in which a defendant explicitly disagrees ─ a test of the limits of a defendant's autonomy as outlined in the Constitution.

    "It is inconceivable that the framers intended that the assistance of counsel should come at the price of defense counsel being authorized to tell the jury that the accused is guilty, even over the accused’s protestations of his own innocence," Richard Bourke, director of the Louisiana Capital Assistance Center, wrote in McCoy's petition to the U.S. Supreme Court.

    The high court agreed in October to hear the case.

    McCoy’s new lawyers say the concept of attorneys going against their client’s wishes by admitting guilt is rare, but less so in Louisiana, where courts have accepted it. English said after the trial that he'd relied on a 2002 state court ruling on a similar case, from adjacent Caddo Parish, that supported the practice.

    “This is really a Louisiana rule that grew out of Caddo Parish,” Bourke said.

    The Louisiana Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (LACDL) complained in a brief supporting McCoy that the local courts had turned the right to assistance of counsel "into the state's cudgel." The LACDL said that "an uncomfortable number of death sentences in Louisiana are the result of defendants representing themselves or defendants expressly objecting to their lawyers' concessions of guilt."

    McCoy's ex-wife, Yolanda Colston, did not respond to requests for comment.

    English, who left his full-time law practice to work in New York real estate development, declined in a recent interview to talk about specifics of the case. But he said he generally did not regret the way he represented clients, saying he did his best to advocate their best interests.

    "A lawyer uses whatever strategies are available to them that are ethical and what the law permits him to do," English said.

    Eleven states filed a joint brief in support of Louisiana, saying the case "presents a textbook example of a reasonable strategic concession."

    But many lawyers say English served McCoy poorly. Among the groups who have filed briefs in support of McCoy are the the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the American Bar Association, several prominent law professors and Yale Law School's Ethics Bureau.

    "Mr. English acted in clear violation of his ethical obligations as a lawyer as well as Mr. McCoy's constitutional rights," the professors and Ethics Bureau said in a joint brief.

    Peter Joy, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis, agreed.

    "If the strategy doesn't work, it's the client who is held responsible," Joy told NBC News. "The lawyer goes home. The client goes to prison or death row.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...-trial-n836626

  4. #14
    Senior Member CnCP Addict one_two_bomb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Detroit MI
    Posts
    965
    Man this is interesting. While i am sure this guy is guilty as sin, he should have a right to contest the charges. What do you guys think will come of this?

  5. #15
    Senior Member CnCP Legend CharlesMartel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    FRANCE
    Posts
    3,073
    Can a lawyer admit guilt in a murder case over a client’s objections?

    By Scott Bomboy
    The Constitution Daily

    In Supreme Court arguments on Wednesday, the nine Justices will tackle a Sixth Amendment question about the proper role of attorneys in capital murder cases when a lawyer admits guilt over his client’s objections

    In McCoy v. Louisiana, Robert McCoy originally filed his own appeal directly to the Supreme Court about two questions related to his conviction on three murder charges. McCoy was sentenced to death in the case.

    The Supreme Court accepted his appeal of a Louisiana state supreme court decision on one of the two questions: “Whether it is unconstitutional for defense counsel to concede an accused's guilt over the accused's express objection.”

    McCoy was accused of killing three people in 2008 in a dispute with his then-wife and he was arrested after fleeing to Idaho. McCoy clashed with public defenders, briefly represented himself, and then hired an attorney, Larry English, to argue his case.

    The client and his attorney disagreed about McCoy’s defense strategy, and English told the court he had doubts about McCoy’s competency due to “severe mental and emotional issues.” The two clashed at a public hearing, but McCoy retained English as his attorney. But then McCoy tried to fire English as his trial started, claiming he had another lawyer or would represent himself. The court refused that request, lacking evidence of a second attorney and seeing the move as a delaying tactic.

    During trial, English introduced a defense that conceded McCoy’s role in the killings as a tactic to avoid the death penalty, by stressing McCoy’s mental condition. Under testimony, McCoy insisted he wasn’t guilty and he was the victim of a conspiracy. The jury found McCoy guilty of three first-degree murder counts. The jury then recommended the death penalty.

    The Louisiana Supreme Court upheld the convictions and disagreed that the trial process violated McCoy’s rights to counsel and self-representation under the Sixth amendment. It found that English acted ethically under the conditions of the trial, citing Florida v. Nixon, a 2004 Supreme Court decision. There, a unanimous Court said that a lawyer could concede guilt in a murder case over a client’s objections under certain circumstances. “When counsel informs the defendant of the strategy counsel believes to be in the defendant’s best interest and the defendant is unresponsive, counsel’s strategic choice is not impeded by any blanket rule demanding the defendant’s explicit consent,” said Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

    McCoy’s appeal, under the supervision of attorney Seth Waxman, argues this case presents different circumstances. “The Sixth Amendment guarantees the accused both the right to an attorney and the right to decide whether to admit guilt. Louisiana posits that a defendant must forgo one of those rights as the price of exercising the other. But that claim flies in the face of the Framers’—and this Court’s—understanding that the defense belongs to the accused personally and that the accused is entitled to decide what the objectives of that defense should be,” he argues.

    Among those submitting briefs supporting McCoy was The Criminal Bar Association Of England & Wales, which agrees with McCoy’s objections on originalist grounds rooted in English law. “It is the defendant, not his counsel, who selects his defense, and counsel is duty-bound to carry it through,” it claims.

    The state of Louisiana argues that English would have violated the ethical standards for attorneys if he didn’t pursue a guilt-concession strategy, based on McCoy’s state of mind and the late timing of his objections to council. “In the rare case—such as this one—where only a concession strategy might spare the defendant’s life, the Sixth Amendment does not categorically bar its use over the defendant’s objection,” the state said in a response to McCoy’s petition.

    The state also said English knew an alibi defense proposed by McCoy was implausible. “Had McCoy not demanded a specific alibi defense that English believed to be unethical and illegal and insisted upon personally testifying to the alibi, but only requested that his innocence be maintained, the case before this Court might be very different,” it concluded.

    https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/...nts-objections

  6. #16
    Senior Member CnCP Legend CharlesMartel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    FRANCE
    Posts
    3,073
    Quote Originally Posted by one_two_bomb View Post
    Man this is interesting. While i am sure this guy is guilty as sin, he should have a right to contest the charges. What do you guys think will come of this?
    he should change his lawyer

  7. #17
    Senior Member CnCP Addict one_two_bomb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Detroit MI
    Posts
    965
    In hindsight sure. But do you think the supreme court will throw his conviction out because of it?

  8. #18
    Senior Member CnCP Legend CharlesMartel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    FRANCE
    Posts
    3,073
    U.S. Justices Sympathize With Death Row Inmate's Claim Against Lawyer

    By Lawrence Hurley
    U.S. News & World Report

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Supreme Court justices on Wednesday signaled sympathy toward a Louisiana death row inmate convicted of a 2008 triple murder who is seeking a new trial because his lawyer ignored his objections and told jurors the man had killed the victims.

    Based on questions posed by liberal and conservative justices during the one-hour argument, it appears likely the court will decide that Robert McCoy, 44, should receive a new trial. The ruling could be a narrow one, with justices concerned about a broad decision that would limit the ability of lawyers to make strategic decisions during trials.

    McCoy was convicted of killing the mother, stepfather and son of his estranged wife Yolanda McCoy in Bossier City, Louisiana. All were shot in the head at close range.

    Lawyer Larry English, hired by the defendant's parents, believed the evidence against his client was overwhelming and sought to negotiate a plea deal with prosecutors that would result in a life sentence. McCoy rejected that plan.

    The legal question is whether McCoy's right to legal representation at trial under the U.S. Constitution's Sixth Amendment was violated. The Supreme Court's ruling, due by the end of June, will set a new precedent on whether a lawyer can concede a defendant's guilt over the client's stated objections.

    Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted that lawyers must allow clients to have a say even if it does not help their case.

    "People can walk themselves into jail. They can walk themselves, regrettably, into the gas chamber. But they have a right to tell their story," Sotomayor said.

    'STEP BACK'

    Liberal Justice Elena Kagan said the case showed a conflict between the lawyer's objective of wanting to avoid the death penalty for the defendant and the client's objective of not wanting to admit he killed his wife's family members.

    "The question is when that happens, does the lawyer have to step back?" Kagan asked.

    Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch questioned whether a lawyer substituting his own goal for a client's could even be viewed as "assistance of counsel" under the Sixth Amendment.

    "Can we even call it assistance of counsel? Is that what it is when a lawyer overrides that person's wishes?" Gorsuch said.

    Although some justices appeared concerned about protecting a lawyer's right to make strategic decisions, liberal Ruth Bader Ginsburg indicated it would not be a hindrance to deciding the case because McCoy's objection was more profound.

    "He wasn't talking about strategy at that time. He just said, 'I do not want to concede that I killed these people,'" Ginsburg said.

    After McCoy was convicted of killing his estranged wife's mother Christine Young, stepfather Willie Young and son Gregory Colston, he obtained new lawyers and said he had been deprived of effective assistance of counsel at trial. This claim was rejected by the trial court and the Louisiana Supreme Court.

    McCoy, arrested in Idaho days after the murders, has maintained his innocence, saying he was out of state at the time. When he was arrested, a gun tied to the murders was found in the 18-wheeler truck in which he was traveling.

    By the time of the 2011 trial, the relationship between client and lawyer had broken down. English told the jury during his opening statement that his client had killed the three victims. He sought to argue that McCoy should be found guilty of second-degree murder instead of the more serious first-degree murder on the grounds that his client did not have the intent to commit the crimes. In doing so, he hoped McCoy would avoid the death penalty.

    https://www.usnews.com/news/us/artic...against-lawyer

  9. #19
    Senior Member CnCP Legend CharlesMartel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    FRANCE
    Posts
    3,073
    Quote Originally Posted by one_two_bomb View Post
    In hindsight sure. But do you think the supreme court will throw his conviction out because of it?
    since Supreme Court can do anything I would not be surprised

  10. #20
    Senior Member CnCP Legend CharlesMartel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    FRANCE
    Posts
    3,073
    Death row inmate in Bossier murders could get new trial

    BY MARK SHERMAN
    The Shreveport Times

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court appeared to be in broad agreement Wednesday that a lawyer for a criminal defendant cannot override his client's wish and concede his guilt at trial, even if the lawyer's aim is to avoid a death sentence.

    "People can walk themselves into jail. They can walk themselves, regrettably, into the gas chamber. But they have a right to tell their story," said Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the high court member with the most experience as a trial lawyer and trial judge.

    Sotomayor seemed to reflect a consensus view of the justices in the case of Louisiana death row inmate Robert McCoy. He repeatedly objected to his lawyer's decision to acknowledge that McCoy killed the son, mother and step-father of his estranged wife in 2008.

    Larry English, McCoy's trial lawyer, has said the evidence against McCoy was overwhelming and that the only way to keep McCoy off death row was to beg for mercy. In the end, the strategy failed and a jury sentenced McCoy to death. If he wins at the Supreme Court, he could get a new trial.

    The high court is weighing who is ultimately in charge of the case, the lawyer or his client, and whether the right to a lawyer that's guaranteed by the Constitution is meaningful if, even with the best intentions, he can ignore his client's wishes.

    The court has previously held that the defendant typically is in charge, but that he cedes some control to his lawyer.

    Seth Waxman, McCoy's Supreme Court lawyer, said the decision to admit guilt rests with the defendant.

    "If the defendant says I did not do X, I did not kill my parents, my family members, defense counsel may not affirmatively tell the jury that he did and ask that he be required to spend the rest of his life in prison," Waxman said.

    Justice Neil Gorsuch described English's concession as a grave error requiring a new trial.

    "A total denial of assistance of counsel, absence of an assistance of counsel," Gorsuch said.

    Defending the Louisiana Supreme Court decision that rejected McCoy's claims, Louisiana Solicitor General Elizabeth Murrill urged the justices to decide that there are some death penalty cases where a lawyer can override his client's wishes "when the strategy that the client wants counsel to pursue is a futile charade."

    McCoy's case is one such example, Murrill said. Court records point to considerable evidence against McCoy, including a gun found in the vehicle in which he was riding at the time of his arrest in Idaho that was linked to cartridge casings found at the scene of the killings in Louisiana.

    McCoy testified in his own defense, saying he was innocent and suggesting that a drug trafficking ring led by law enforcement officers had framed him for the killings. He tried to recruit witnesses he said would vouch for him, including then-Sen. David Vitter. Vitter said he did not know McCoy.

    The trial court found McCoy was competent to stand trial, but Justice Samuel Alito wondered whether that decision was correct.

    "If somebody like McCoy really sincerely believes that he did not commit these physical acts, but it was all done as part of an elaborate conspiracy, is he capable of assisting in his own defense?" Alito asked.

    English, the trial lawyer, argued consistently that McCoy was in a fragile emotional state and that he lacked the intent to kill that is necessary for a jury to impose the death penalty.

    English's view of McCoy's chances led him to concede in his opening argument that McCoy "committed these crimes."

    Justice Elena Kagan said she understood English's dilemma, but questioned whether a lawyer had any choice when a client says his "paramount goal is to insist until my last breath that I didn't kill my family members."

    A decision in McCoy v. Louisiana, 16-8255, is expected by late June.

    http://www.shreveporttimes.com/story...al/1047930001/

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •