Podcast appearances and mentions of Mccoy V Louisiana

This episode is about your responsibility within your legal defense and what decisions are yours to make and live with --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/supremedecisions/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/supremedecisions/support

On May 14, 2018, the Supreme Court decided McCoy v. Louisiana, a case considering whether defense counsel may--against the defendant’s express wishes--concede his client’s guilt in an effort to avoid the death penalty.In 2008, Robert McCoy was indicted on three counts of first-degree murder for the deaths of the mother, stepfather, and son of his estranged wife. McCoy pleaded not guilty, maintaining that he was out of state at the time of the murder. In 2010, his relationship with the court-appointed public defender broke down, and in March 2010 Larry English became McCoy’s defense attorney. English concluded that the evidence against McCoy was overwhelming and told McCoy that he would concede McCoy’s guilt in an effort to avoid the death penalty; McCoy adamantly opposed English’s strategy. At trial, English nevertheless indicated repeatedly to the jury that McCoy had caused the victims’ deaths and pleaded for mercy. McCoy protested unsuccessfully to the trial judge and was permitted to testify to his innocence, but was ultimately convicted and sentenced to death. The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s ruling that defense counsel had authority to concede guilt over McCoy’s objection as a strategy to avoid a death sentence. In light of a division of opinion among state courts of last resort on whether it is unconstitutional to allow defense counsel to concede guilt over the defendant’s intransigent and unambiguous objection, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari. By a vote of 6-3, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Louisiana Supreme Court and remanded the case for a new trial. In an opinion delivered by Justice Ginsburg, the Court held that the Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant the right to choose the fundamental objective of his defense and insist that counsel refrain from admitting guilt, even when counsel’s experience-based view is that confessing guilt offers the defendant the best chance to avoid the death penalty. Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court, which was joined by the Chief Justice, and Justices Kennedy, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch. To discuss the case, we have Jay Schweikert, Policy Analyst with the Cato Institute’s Project on Criminal Justice.

On May 14, 2018, the Supreme Court decided McCoy v. Louisiana, a case considering whether defense counsel may--against the defendant’s express wishes--concede his client’s guilt in an effort to avoid the death penalty.In 2008, Robert McCoy was indicted on three counts of first-degree murder for the deaths of the mother, stepfather, and son of his estranged wife. McCoy pleaded not guilty, maintaining that he was out of state at the time of the murder. In 2010, his relationship with the court-appointed public defender broke down, and in March 2010 Larry English became McCoy’s defense attorney. English concluded that the evidence against McCoy was overwhelming and told McCoy that he would concede McCoy’s guilt in an effort to avoid the death penalty; McCoy adamantly opposed English’s strategy. At trial, English nevertheless indicated repeatedly to the jury that McCoy had caused the victims’ deaths and pleaded for mercy. McCoy protested unsuccessfully to the trial judge and was permitted to testify to his innocence, but was ultimately convicted and sentenced to death. The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s ruling that defense counsel had authority to concede guilt over McCoy’s objection as a strategy to avoid a death sentence. In light of a division of opinion among state courts of last resort on whether it is unconstitutional to allow defense counsel to concede guilt over the defendant’s intransigent and unambiguous objection, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari. By a vote of 6-3, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Louisiana Supreme Court and remanded the case for a new trial. In an opinion delivered by Justice Ginsburg, the Court held that the Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant the right to choose the fundamental objective of his defense and insist that counsel refrain from admitting guilt, even when counsel’s experience-based view is that confessing guilt offers the defendant the best chance to avoid the death penalty. Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court, which was joined by the Chief Justice, and Justices Kennedy, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch. To discuss the case, we have Jay Schweikert, Policy Analyst with the Cato Institute’s Project on Criminal Justice.

Today's episode takes a deep dive into two important Supreme Court opinions decided last week:  McCoy v. Louisiana, which prohibits attorneys from conceding their client's guilt over that client's objections in a capital murder trial, and  Murphy v. NCAA, which struck down the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA), 28 U.S. Code § 3701 et seq.  In both cases, we hope to show that these cases have two legitimate sides. We begin, of course, with sportsball.  What is PASPA, why did the Court strike it down, does it make sense, and most importantly:  when can you bet against the San Jose Sharks? In the main segment, we break down the difficult questions surrounding the representation of capital murder defendants. After that, we head back overseas with a really insightful listener comment that takes us deeper into the law of treaties. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #76 about present recollection refreshed.  Remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances None!  If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links  The first case we break down is  Murphy v. NCAA, which struck down the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, 28 U.S. Code § 3701 et seq. After that, we turn to McCoy v. Louisiana, which prohibits attorneys from conceding their client's guilt over that client's objections in a capital murder trial, distinguishing the Court's earlier decision in Florida v. Nixon, 543 U.S. 175 (2004). We discussed treaty obligations in Episode 173. Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

Is it unconstitutional for defense counsel to concede the defendant's guilt over that defendant's express objection? In McCoy v. Louisiana, the Supreme Court has an opportunity to affirm that a competent defendant may play an important role in his own defense strategy. Jay Schweikert comments. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

A seven-year jail stint awaiting trial, out-of-state voting, and the ban on out-of-state gun sales. Use iTunes? https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/short-circuit/id309062019 Use Android (RSS)? http://feeds.soundcloud.com/users/soundcloud:users:84493247/sounds.rss Newsletter: http://ij.org/about-us/shortcircuit/ Want to email us? shortcircuit@ij.org Not so speedy trial: http://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/15-3073_opn.pdf Territorial voting: http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D01-18/C:16-4240:J:Manion:aut:T:fnOp:N:2093121:S:0 Handgun sales: http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/15/15-10311-CV0.pdf McCoy v. Louisiana: http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/01/argument-analysis-concern-death-row-inmates-rights-likely-trump-line-drawing-worries/ Eagle Pass forfeiture: http://ij.org/case/eagle-pass-civil-forfeiture/ PA funeral homes cert petition: http://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/14-53-Heffmer-reply-brief.pdf

This week's episode is all about mistakes, as lawyers and podcasters.  Brett and Nazim center this episode around McCoy v. Louisiana, which asks whether or not an attorney who concedes guilt during a First Degree Murder trial has violated his client's Constitutional right to an attorney.  This episode covers the standard for ineffective assistance of counsel, goes through a few examples, and even covers a short background on Louisiana law, but first and foremost, Brett and Nazim discuss probably the greatest listener comment we've received.  Law starts at (05:56).

In Ep. 15 of Aider & Abettor, Avi and Sajid sit down with Rod O'Connor. Rod retired from public defense in 2016. During his career, Rod tried homicides and mentored new lawyers (including Avi). In the first segment, Rod shares his perspective as a recently retired public defender on the parts of the job that he misses and the parts of the job that he does not miss. They take up FAQs/cocktail party questions in the second segment. How do they represent those people? How do they sleep at night? Find out. As part of this segment, they share their thoughts on the McCoy v. Louisiana case. In that case, an attorney conceded his client's guilt in a death penalty trial, over the client's objection. The attorney thought this would increase the chances of a non-death sentence. At the end of the show, they share their Thing(s). The music in this episode is by Lee Rosevere, Makaih Beats, and Chris Zabriskie.

Today's episode features a deep dive in the latest legal news surrounding the DACA program. First, the guys tackle a listener question regarding the difference between the James Damore case against Google and Colin Kaepernick's grievance against the NFL.  Are the two cases similar? After the main segment, Andrew walks us through a case that was just argued before the Supreme Court, McCoy v. Louisiana, in which a lawyer conceded his client's guilt during a capital murder trial over the client's objections. Finally, we end with an all-new Game of Thrones-themed Thomas Takes the Bar Exam (Question #59) involving lightning, wildfires, an experienced woodsman, and an errant crossbow bolt.  Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing it on Facebook along with your guess.  We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances Andrew was a guest on This Week In News With Kevin and Benedict, talking felon voting rights; give it a listen! Show Notes & Links We discussed the James Damore lawsuit on Episode 111 of Serious Inquiries Only, and the Kaepernick grievance on OA Episode 115. The Sherman Antitrust Act begins at 15 U.S.C. § 1. We first discussed the DACA recission on Episode 102. You can read the District Court decision on DACA here. The primary case we discussed in the assistance of counsel section was Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975). Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

McCoy v. Louisiana | 01/17/18 | Docket #: 16-8255