Nix v. Whiteside
Significance, Overview, Whiteside's Crime And Defense, A Unanimous Decision, Federal District Court
Crispus Nix, Warden
Emanuel Charles Whiteside
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.
Date of Decision
26 February 1986
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.
- 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).
The Federal Judiciary Home Page. http://www.uscourts.gov.
- 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
- New York v. Quarles - Significance, Miranda Warnings Inadequate, A Compelling Exception, Impact, Self-incrimination Clause
- Nix v. Whiteside - Significance
- Nix v. Whiteside - Overview
- Nix v. Whiteside - Whiteside's Crime And Defense
- Nix v. Whiteside - A Unanimous Decision
- Nix v. Whiteside - Federal District Court
- Other Free Encyclopedias