Justices Reject Death Row Inmate’s Bid for a New Trial

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a Florida death row inmate should not automatically get a new trial because his lawyer conceded the man’s guilt without his consent.

The high court also rejected an appeal from Texas death row inmate Troy Kunkle. The move allows his execution to proceed, even though one justice declared that Kunkle’s sentence clearly violated the Constitution.

In the Florida case, the Supreme Court voted 8 to 0 to set aside a Florida Supreme Court decision in favor of Joe Elton Nixon. He was convicted for the 1984 murder of a woman he kidnapped from a Tallahassee mall after asking her for a ride.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who was being treated for thyroid cancer and was unable to attend oral arguments for the case in November, did not take part in the decision.

The ruling narrows the legal standard for a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, by far the most commonly used defense by death row inmates, making it more difficult for defendants to challenge their sentences.

At issue was the court-appointed attorney’s decision to admit at trial that Nixon was responsible for the victim’s “horrible, horrible death” in hopes that his candor would convince the jury not to impose the death penalty. The state court said that deprived Nixon of his 6th Amendment right to a vigorous trial defense.

In an opinion written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Supreme Court said the attorney’s concession of guilt could not justify a new trial on that grounds alone.

The defendant had several opportunities to object when his lawyer told him of the strategy but did not, she said.