## Facts

- Robert McCoy was charged in Louisiana with three counts of first-degree murder arising from the 2008 killings of his estranged wife’s mother, stepfather, and son.
- McCoy pleaded not guilty and consistently maintained he was out of state at the time of the killings, asserting an alternative account blaming corrupt police.
- McCoy’s appointed counsel concluded the evidence of McCoy’s involvement was overwhelming and pursued a capital mitigation strategy: concede McCoy committed the killings while arguing diminished capacity and lack of specific intent to avoid a death sentence.
- McCoy repeatedly and expressly objected to any admission of guilt and sought to discharge counsel; the trial court denied the discharge request as untimely.
- Over McCoy’s objections, counsel told the jury during the guilt phase that McCoy committed the murders; McCoy testified and maintained his innocence.
- The jury convicted McCoy of three counts of first-degree murder and, after the penalty phase (where counsel again conceded guilt and argued for mercy), returned three death verdicts.
- The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed, characterizing counsel’s concession as a permissible strategic choice aimed at avoiding death, not a denial of counsel or disabling conflict.

## Issues

1. Whether the Sixth Amendment permits defense counsel to concede a defendant’s guilt over the defendant’s express objection and insistence on maintaining innocence.
2. Whether such an override of the defendant’s chosen defense objective is evaluated under ineffective-assistance principles or treated as a distinct constitutional violation requiring automatic reversal.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed and remanded in a 6–3 decision.
- The Court held the Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant the right to decide the objective of the defense and to insist that counsel refrain from admitting guilt when the defendant expressly maintains innocence.
- The Court distinguished situations where a defendant is informed but does not object to a concession strategy.
- The Court rejected the justification that counsel could concede guilt to avoid facilitating perjury where there was no avowed perjury and counsel had no reason to believe the defendant disbelieved his own testimony.
- The Court ruled the violation was structural error, requiring a new trial without any showing of prejudice.

## Legal Principles

- The Sixth Amendment protects a defendant’s autonomy to choose the fundamental objective of the defense, including the decision to maintain innocence rather than concede guilt.
- Trial-management decisions (e.g., tactics, objections, witness examination) generally belong to counsel, but certain core choices belong to the defendant (e.g., pleading guilty, waiving jury, testifying, appealing), and the objective of maintaining innocence falls within that defendant-controlled category.
- A counsel’s admission of the defendant’s guilt over the defendant’s express objection is unconstitutional regardless of counsel’s view that the concession is the best strategy to avoid a harsher sentence.
- When counsel overrides this autonomy right by conceding guilt against the defendant’s expressed position, the error is structural and not subject to harmless-error review or a prejudice requirement.

## Conclusion

The Court held that a defendant who expressly insists on maintaining innocence has the Sixth Amendment right to prevent counsel from conceding guilt, and counsel’s contrary concession is structural error requiring reversal and a new trial.


McCoy v. Louisiana, 584 U.S. 414 (2018)