Akil Jahi, aka Preston Carter v. Tennessee

This Court held in McCoy v. Louisiana, 138 S. Ct. 1500 (2018) that the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees criminal defendants full autonomy to decide the objective of their defense, including whether to admit to heinous conduct charged against them. Consequentially, an attorney may not unilaterally “admit her client’s guilt of a charged crime” or particular conduct “over the client’s intransigent objection to that admission,” even when “counsel’s experienced-based view is that confessing guilt offers the defendant the best chance to avoid the death penalty.” Id. at 1505, 1510. This Sixth Amendment guarantee protects a criminal defendant from having counsel usurp control of an issue within the defendant’s sole prerogative. The questions presented are:

1. Does the Sixth Amendment holding of McCoy v. Louisiana, 138 S. Ct. 1500 (2018) apply to a penalty phase capital trial to protect a defendant’s autonomy over the objectives of his defense by preventing defense counsel from falsely admitting that the client engaged in more heinous conduct than the client admitted in a limited guilty plea, resulting in a death sentence?

2. Should this Court grant certiorari and accept merits briefing on Question 1 or summarily reverse the judgment below and remand for further proceedings not inconsistent with McCoy v. Louisiana, 138 S. Ct. 1500 (2018)?