Create a case brief...In the landmark case Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U.S. 157, 106 S. Ct. 988, 89 L. Ed. 2d 123 (1986), the United States Supreme Court was presented with a case wherein the criminal defendant claimed a violation of his Sixth Amend- ment right to assistance of counsel when his attorney told him not to state in his own defense testimony that he saw "something metallic" (alluding to the fact that the defendant believed his murder victim to have had a gun but did not in fact see one); the attorney also told the defendant that if he insisted in presenting that testimony, the attorney would have to disclose the perjured testimony to the court. The Supreme Court found that the Sixth Amendment

In the landmark case Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U.S. 157,106 S. Ct. 988,89 L. Ed. 2d 123 (1986), the United States Supreme Court was presented with a case wherein the criminal defendant claimed a violation of his Sixth Amendment right to assistance of counsel when his attorney told him not to state in his own defense testimony that he saw "something metallic" (alluding to the fact that the defendant believed his murder victim to have had a gun but did not in fact see one); the attorney also told the defendant that if he insisted in presenting that testimony, the attorney would have to disclose the perjured testimony to the court. The Supreme Court found that the Sixth Amendment In the landmark case Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U.S. 157,106S. Ct. 988,89 L. Ed. 2d 123 (1986), the United States Supreme Court was presented with a case wherein the criminal defendant claimed a violation of his Sixth Amendment right to assistance of counsel when his attorney told him not to state in his own defense testimony that he saw "something metallic" (alluding to the fact that the defendant believed his murder victim to have had a gun but did not in fact see one); the attorney also told the defendant that if he insisted in presenting that testimony, the attorney would have to disclose the perjured testimony to the court. The Supreme Court found that the Sixth Amendment does not and cannot extend to subornation of perjury. "The Model Rules do not merely authorize disclosure by counsel of client perjury; they require such disclosure." Id. at 168 (emphasis in the original). The only deprivation in this case was the defendant's loss of his proposed submission of perjury; this, in the Court's view, is not only a good thing, but reasonable and proper under the Professional Rules of Conduct, and did not, therefore, deny or impair the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. "The right to counsel includes no right to have a lawyer who will cooperate with planned perjury. A lawyer who would so cooperate would be at risk of prosecution for suborning perjury, and disciplinary proceedings, including suspension or disbarment." Id at 173