CESAR RUIZ
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that a defendant does not have a due process right to compel their counsel to present perjured testimony. The court relied on established precedent that counsel cannot be required to participate in a fraud upon the court.
No, a defendant does not have a due process right to compel their counsel to aid in the commission of a fraud upon the court by presenting perjured testimony.
[1] A defendant's constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel does not include the right to require counsel to present perjurious testimony or aid in committing f…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“[Defendant] has no due process right to require his counsel to aid in the commission of a fraud upon the court by presenting perjurious testimony.”
Establishes the core legal principle that counsel cannot be compelled to present false testimony.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe specific facts leading to the appeal are not detailed in this per curiam opinion. However, the case involves a defendant, Cesar Ruiz, appealing a …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Fraud On The Court cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Smith v. State, 931 So. 2d 790, 807 (Fla. 2006)
("[Defendant] has no due process right to require his counsel to aid in the commission of a fraud upon the court by presenting perjurious testimony.” (citing DeHaven v. State, 618 So. 2d 337, 339 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (stating that defendant's constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel does not include right to require counsel to commit fraud on court))); cf. Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U.S. 157, 173–74 (1986) (“[T]he 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. [Counsel's] admonitions to [her] client can in no sense be said to have forced [defendant] into an impermissible choice between his right to counsel and his right to testify as he proposed for there was no permissible choice to testify falsely. For defense counsel to take steps to persuade a criminal defendant to testify truthfully, or to withdraw, deprives the defendant of neither his right to counsel nor the right to testify truthfully.").
2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U.S. 157 (U.S. 1986)
- Smith v. State, 931 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 2006)
- DeHAVEN v. State, 618 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)