Defense Strategy

Florida v. Nixon

Issues

What is the appropriate standard to determine whether defense counsel was ineffective in a capital trial, where, as a matter of strategy in the face of overwhelming evidence, counsel chooses not to contest guilt in order to enhance defense credibility at the penalty phase of the trial?
Is trial counsel's strategic defense opening and closing comments the functional equivalent of a guilty plea, thereby requiring an affirmative showing that the client voluntarily and intelligently waived constitutional protections?
Court below

 

A Florida court sentenced Joe Elton Nixon to death following a trial in which his lawyer conceded that the prosecution had proven its case, telling the jurors, "I think you will find that the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each and every element of the crimes charged, first-degree premeditated murder, kidnapping, robbery, and arson." In the face of seemingly overwhelming evidence against Nixon, the defense lawyer hoped that his frank admission would curry favor with the jurors and compel them to spare Nixon's life. On appeal, Nixon argued that his lawyer's admission was tantamount to a guilty plea, and that the lawyer lacked the authority to enter such a plea without Nixon's consent. The State argued that it was a reasonable trial strategy, not a guilty plea. Nixon claimed his defense lawyer was ineffective; however, Nixon and the state dispute by which standard of ineffectiveness the court should measure the lawyer's performance. Nixon argues that admitting guilt without his consentwas such grave misconduct that it automatically negates any validity the strategy may hold. Florida argues for a more flexible standard that would measure the lawyer's performance against prevailing professional norms and consider whether Nixon was prejudiced by any possible ineffectiveness. A second question is whether the lawyer's statements constituted a guilty plea. Without an affirmative showing that a guilty plea was intelligent and voluntary, it is unconstitutional. Here, it is undisputed that Nixon did not affirmatively acquiesce to defense counsel's strategy. While such a strategy is very likely to have the effect of a guilty plea, namely a criminal conviction, strictly speaking it lacks a waiver of the constitutional rights that accompanies a guilty plea, including the right to be free from self incrimination and the right to a trial by jury.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether in a capital murder case, the Florida Supreme Court:
 
 
Applied an incorrect standard, contrary to Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685 (2002) and Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 120 S.Ct. 1029 (2000), by finding defense counsel ineffective per se under United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (1984) despite having found counsel's strategy not to contest overwhelming evidence of guilt but to vigorously contest the sentence in the defendant's best interest and reasonably calculated to avoid a death sentence.
Erred in concluding that Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969) prohibited trial counsel from adopting a strategy, after fully informing his client, without objection, not to contest overwhelming evidence of guilt to protect the best interest of his client in contesting the appropriateness of imposing the death penalty.
Joe Elton Nixon was convicted of first-degree murder, kidnapping, robbery and arson for his involvement in the 1984 murder of a Tallahassee, Florida woman. Nixon v. Florida, 857 So.2d 172 (Fla., 2003). Nixon's attorney offered the prosecutor a guilty plea in exchange for a life sentence.
Submit for publication
0
Subscribe to Defense Strategy