Other Free Encyclopedias » Law Library - American Law and Legal Information » Notable Trials and Court Cases - 1981 to 1988

Nix v. Whiteside - Significance, Overview, Whiteside's Crime And Defense, A Unanimous Decision, Federal District Court

lawyer counsel petitioner washington

Petitioner

Crispus Nix, Warden

Respondent

Emanuel Charles Whiteside

Petitioner's Claim

That even though Emanuel Whiteside's attorney dissuaded him from giving false testimony and warned him that he would withdraw if Whiteside insisted on perjuring, Whiteside nonetheless received a fair trial and effective legal representation, suffering no violation of his the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

Chief Lawyer for Petitioner

Brent R. Appel

Chief Lawyer for Respondent

Patrick Reilly Grady

Justices for the Court

Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Jr., Warren E. Burger (writing for the Court), Thurgood Marshall, Sandra Day O'Connor, Lewis F. Powell, Jr., William H. Rehnquist, John Paul Stevens, Byron R. White.

Justices Dissenting

None

Place

Washington, D.C.

Date of Decision

26 February 1986

Decision

The Court ruled that Whiteside's lawyer did not violate Whiteside's Sixth Amendment right to counsel by refusing to allow him to present perjured testimony.

Related Cases

  • Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222 (1971).
  • Wilcox v. Johnson, 555 F. 2d 115 (1977).
  • Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).

Sources

The Federal Judiciary Home Page. http://www.uscourts.gov.

Further Readings

  • Hirsch, Alan. "The Gladiators of the Courtroom." Washington Times, January 31, 1997, p. A19.
  • Pope, Daniel J., and Stephanie J. Kim. "Client Perjury: Should a Lawyer Defend the System or the Client?" Defense Counsel Journal, July 1997, p. 447.
Nix v. Williams - Significance, Supreme Court Approves Inevitable Discovery Exception, Dissenters Feel Exclusionary Rule Is Undermined, Exclusionary Rule Offends Law And Order Supporters [next] [back] New York v. Quarles - Significance, Miranda Warnings Inadequate, A Compelling Exception, Impact, Self-incrimination Clause

User Comments

Your email address will be altered so spam harvesting bots can't read it easily.
Hide my email completely instead?

Cancel or