## Facts

- Emanuel Charles Whiteside was charged with murder in Iowa after stabbing Calvin Love during a dispute at Love’s apartment.
- Whiteside claimed self-defense and initially told appointed counsel Gary Robinson that he had not seen a gun in Love’s hand, though he believed Love had one.
- No gun was found, and other witnesses present told counsel they had not seen a gun.
- Counsel advised Whiteside that self-defense could be supported by a reasonable belief that Love had a gun, even if no gun was actually present.
- Shortly before trial, Whiteside first stated he saw “something metallic” in Love’s hand and suggested he needed to say he saw a gun to avoid conviction.
- Counsel concluded Whiteside intended to testify falsely and warned that counsel could not assist perjury and would take steps including informing the court, seeking withdrawal, and potentially impeaching false testimony if Whiteside insisted.
- Whiteside ultimately testified consistently with his original account: he asserted a belief that Love was reaching for a gun but admitted he did not actually see one.
- After conviction for second-degree murder, Whiteside sought a new trial and later federal habeas relief, alleging ineffective assistance based on counsel’s warnings and refusal to present the “metallic object” account.

## Issues

1. Whether the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel is violated when defense counsel refuses to cooperate in presenting testimony counsel reasonably believes would be perjury and warns of potential disclosure to the court.
2. Whether counsel’s conduct constituted deficient performance and caused prejudice under the two-prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the grant of habeas relief and held that the Sixth Amendment was not violated.
- The Court held that the right to counsel does not include a right to have counsel assist in presenting perjured testimony.
- Applying ineffective-assistance doctrine, the Court found counsel’s conduct was not constitutionally deficient.
- The Court also found no prejudice because Whiteside testified, presented a self-defense theory based on reasonable belief, and the foreclosed testimony would have been false and subject to impeachment.
- Concurring Justices agreed habeas relief should be denied; some would resolve the case primarily on the absence of prejudice.

## Legal Principles

- The Sixth Amendment right to assistance of counsel does not include a right to counsel’s cooperation in planned perjury.
- Defense counsel may refuse to present testimony counsel reasonably believes is false and may warn the client of counsel’s ethical obligations and potential remedial steps.
- Under the ineffective-assistance framework, conduct consistent with preventing the presentation of perjured testimony is not deficient performance.
- A defendant cannot establish prejudice from counsel’s refusal to facilitate testimony that would be perjury, particularly where the defendant still presents the lawful core of the defense theory.

## Conclusion

The Court held that counsel’s refusal to assist suspected perjury, and counsel’s warnings about disclosure and withdrawal, did not deny the defendant effective assistance of counsel because the Constitution does not protect a right to present false testimony and the defendant failed to show deficient performance or prejudice.


Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U.S. 157 (1986)