Nix v. Whiteside

Defendant, Whiteside and two others went to Calvin Love’s apartment looking for drugs. An argument broke out and Love allegedly told his girlfriend to get “his piece” and then he returned to bed. According to Whiteside, Love then started to reach under his pillow and moved toward him. In fear of his life, Whiteside inflicted a fatal wound by stabbing Love in the chest. Whiteside was charged with murder and he initially told his court-appointed attorney that he stabbed Love as the latter was pulling a gun from underneath his pillow. After further questioning by his attorney, Whiteside told him he had not actually seen a weapon. No guns were found on the premises and none of the individuals there at the time of the incident saw a gun. Defendant’s counsel informed him that the existence of a gun was not necessary to establish the claim of self-defense. Defendant, however, expressed to his attorney that he had to concoct a story about seeing the victim with a weapon in order to win on a theory of self-defense. Defendant’s attorney told him this would amount to perjury and if he perjured himself on the stand, he would inform the court of the deception. In addition, the attorney indicated he would seek to withdraw from the representation. At trial, Whiteside testified he knew Love had a gun and believed Love was reaching for a gun when he acted in self-defense. On cross, Whiteside admitted he had not actually seen a gun. Defendant was found guilty of second degree murder and he moved for a new trial claiming he was deprived of a fair trial by his lawyer’s admonitions not to state he saw a gun. The Supreme Court of Iowa affirmed the conviction and held that the right to have counsel present all appropriate defenses does not extend to perjury, an attorney’s duty to a client does not extend to assisting a client in committing perjury, and the attorney’s actions in the instance were required. Whiteside then petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus and the Court of Appeals granted the writ. Even though the Court of Appeals accepted the findings of the trial judge and the Iowa Supreme Court that trial counsel believed with good cause Whiteside would perjure himself, the court reasoned that an intent to commit perjury when communicated to counsel does not alter a defendant’s right to effective assistance of counsel. Thus, the attorney’s admonition to Whiteside constituted a threat to violate the attorney’s duty to preserve client privilege. Therefore, the Court of Appeals found that the threatened violation of client confidences breaches the standards of effective representation laid out in Strickland v. Washington.