Opinion ID: 2444929
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Cooke is Inapplicable

Text: First, Cooke is inapplicable. In Cooke, this Court held that when a defense counsel's strategy infringes a defendant's constitutional right to make fundamental decisions regarding his case such as whether to plead guilty or testify on his own behalf, that conduct undermines the proper functioning of the adversarial process under the Sixth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. [45] In that case, Cooke's counsel pursued a guilty but mentally ill defense over Cooke's vociferous and repeated protestations that he was completely innocent and not mentally ill. [46] Cooke's counsel also refused to allow Cooke to testify on his own behalf because counsel thought Cooke would assert his innocence, thereby undermining counsel's position that Cooke had, in fact, committed the homicide. [47] Finally, Cooke's trial counsel had compromised the jury's impartiality by stating in their opening argumentagainst Cooke's wishesthat Cooke was guilty but mentally ill. [48] None of these circumstances is present here. Scott has not claimed that his counsel admitted guilt in violation of his express wishes. Scott never denied killing Edna Crown. Nor has Scott contested his counsel's statements or asserted his innocence in his pleadings. Here, in contrast to Cooke, guilt is not a contested issue. Scott has not claimed that his counsel refused to let him testify on his own behalf, or compromised the impartiality of the jury by asserting his guilt when he (Scott) maintained his innocence. Therefore, the concerns underlying the infringement and undermining of a defendant's constitutional rights in Cooke are not implicated in Scott's case.