An interesting opinion (and dissent) in a case reviewing the duty of trial counsel to follow his client's instructions in a capital murder case.
Trial counsel had effectively conceded that the defendant had committed the actus reus of the offence because of the overwhelming strength of the evidence, despite instructions to run alibi and conspiracy.
By majority, the court decided that counsel's actions were impermissible, as the admission blocked the defendant’s right to make the fundamental choices about his own defence. The dissenting opinion found sympathy for trial counsel's decision, as arguing for a lesser offense in such a way that admitted the killings was likely to be a better strategy for avoiding the death penalty. As the jury decide on both guilt and sentence, running a 'ridiculous' defence was likely to significantly harm any ability to mitigate at the sentencing stage.