Cited by

can only be made by the defendant.” -61 (Minn. 1984).

This rule stems from the 5 well-established principle that “whether or not to admit guilt at a trial is a decision that under our system can only be made by the defendant.” d 858, 860-61 (Minn. 1984).

the defendant was charged with the sexual assault of a ten-year-old.

N.W.2d 453, 459 (Minn. 2017) (reversing conviction where defense counsel conceded defendant’s guilt during closing arguments); Dukes v. State , (remanding to the postconviction court for further proceedings to determine whether defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel when his counsel conceded guilt during closing argument); State v. Wiplinger , (reversing where defense counsel implied that defendant was guilty during cross-examination of the alleged victim).

” (clarifying that an unconsented-to concession on a single element is not necessarily concession of guilt because counsel may make “appropriate, tactical concessions”) .

” State v. Prtine , (stating that it might be a reasonable strategy “to admit that defendant is guilty of one of two charges in the hope of increasing his credibility with the jury”).

ment” and that Nielsen “still [had] a CD disc with all the discovery.” As to Nielsen’s assertion that his attorney conceded his guilt, “if a defense counsel impliedly admits a defendan t's guilt without the defendant’ s permission or acquiescence, the defendant should be given a new trial even if it can be said that the defendant would have been convicted in any event.”

(recognizing an express concession); (recognizing an implied concession).

at 254 ( (ordering a new trial after defense counsel merely implied defendant’s guilt during cross - examination of the victim)).

Understandable Trial Strategy The idea that conceding guilt could be an “understandable trial strategy” first ap *599

(“[W]e generally believe that if a defense counsel impliedly admits a defendant’s guilt without the defendant’s permission or acquiescence, the defendant should be given a new trial even if it can be said that the defendant would have been convicted in any event.”).

This court recognizes the “basic principle that a criminal defense attorney cannot admit his client’s guilt to the jury without first obtaining the client’s consent to this strategy.”

218 , 83 L.Ed.2d 148 (1984); (presuming prejudice where defense counsel impliedly admitted defendant’s guilt without permission of defendant); with, Scarpa v. Dubois, 38 F.3d 1,15 (1st Cir.1994) (refusing to apply Cronic “presumed prejudice” rule where defense counsel conceded sole contested issue in case), cert.

-61 (Minn.1984); -96 (Minn.1990).

(defendant immediately objected at trial); (defendant objected to attorney’s representation).

we held that an unauthorized implied admission of guilt by a defendant’s trial counsel, without a defendant’s permission or acquiescence, will result in a new trial.

749 (1927) (adjudication by biased judge); (defendant's attorney, over defendant’s objection, impliedly admitted defendant’s guilt to jury).

clearly states that if a criminal defense attorney impliedly admits his client’s guilt to the jury without first obtaining the client’s consent to this strategy it constitutes ineffective assistance.

(new trial granted because defense counsel impliedly admitted defendant’s guilt in cross-examination of victim and her grandmother).

To the same effect, where we held that “if a defense counsel impliedly admits a defendant’s guilt without the defendant’s permission or acquiescence, the defendant should be given a new trial even if it can be said that the defendant would have been convicted in any event.” Id.

(defense counsel on cross-examination impliedly admitted defendant’s guilt without defendant’s permission or acquiescence).