BookRags.com Literature Guides Literature
Guides
Criticism & Essays Criticism &
Essays
Questions & Answers Questions &
Answers
Lesson Plans Lesson
Plans
My Bibliography Periodic Table U.S. Presidents Shakespeare Sonnet Shake-Up
Research Anything:        
History | Encyclopedias | Films | News | Create a Bibliography | More... Login | Register | Help
Not What You Meant?  There are 24 definitions for Nix.

Nix v. Whiteside

Print-Friendly
About 1 pages (365 words)

Bookmark and Share Know this topic well? Help others and get FREE products!

Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U.S. 157 (1986) was a United States Supreme Court decision that dealt with the effective assistance of counsel during a criminal trial. Before his trial for murder, the defendant, Whiteside, discussed his planned testimony with his attorney, and said that he had seen "something metallic in [the victim's] hand", in contradiction to earlier statements that he had not seen a gun in the victim's hand. Whiteside's attorney, Robinson, had warned that he (Robinson) would have an ethical obligation to report perjured testimony to the court. Whiteside, on the stand, admitted that while he believed the victim had a gun, he did not actually see a gun in the victim's hand. Whiteside was convicted, and subsequently applied for a Federal writ of habeas corpus, on the grounds that his conviction was tainted under the Sixth Amendment in that his attorney's threat to disclose the perjury had deprived him, Whiteside, of effective assistance of counsel. The court ruled unanimously that Whiteside had not been deprived of his Sixth Amendment rights. The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice Burger, stated that an attorney's duty to his client's cause is "limited to legitimate, lawful conduct compatible with the very nature of a trial as a search for truth"; and that "the right to counsel includes no right to have a lawyer who will cooperate with planned perjury". Concurrences by Blackmun, Brennan and Stevens stated that Whiteside had failed to show that the attorney's actions had caused prejudice to the defendant's trial required to sustain a claim of "effective representation", as required by the case of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). In a separate concurrence, Brennan said that the Court is deciding only the narrow issue "conduct acceptable under the Sixth Amendment" (quoting the lower court). "Unfortunately, the Court seems unable to resist the temptation of sharing with the legal community its vision of ethical conduct." But it is up to "the States... how [lawyers] behave in their courts, unless and until federal rights are violated."

See also

External links

View More Summaries on Nix v. Whiteside
 
Ask any question on Nix v. Whiteside and get it answered FAST!
Answer questions in BookRags Q&A and earn points toward
discounted or even FREE Study Guides and other BookRags products!
Learn more about BookRags Q&A
Copyrights
Nix v. Whiteside from Wíkipedia. ©2006 by Wíkipedia. Licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. View a list of authors or edit this article.

Article Navigation
Join BookRagslearn moreJoin BookRags




About BookRags | Customer Service | Report an Error | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy