Louisiana Supreme Court Announces Strickland Governs Collateral Claims That Defense Counsel Prevented Defendant From Testifying
by David Kim
The Supreme Court of Louisiana held that when a defendant on collateral review alleges defense counsel prevented him from testifying, the claim must be evaluated under the two-prong standard set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), requiring proof of deficient performance and resulting prejudice, not automatic reversal for structural error. Expressly overruling State v. Hampton, 818 So. 2d 720 (La. 2002), the Court adopted the majority approach among state and federal jurisdictions, reasoning that Weaver v. Massachusetts, 582 U.S. 286 (2017), abrogated Hampton’s holding. The Court further held that “substantiating evidence exclusively from defense counsel is not required.”
Background
Jarvis Turner was convicted of armed robbery. His conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. Turner subsequently filed a post-conviction relief application claiming ineffective assistance of counsel, asserting that his trial attorney prevented him from testifying. At the evidentiary hearing, Turner presented several affidavits but produced no testimony or affidavit from his trial counsel substantiating the claim. The trial court granted relief, finding structural error that required automatic reversal under Hampton. The Court of Appeal reversed, interpreting Hampton to require testimony or an affidavit from defense counsel acknowledging the deprivation. The Louisiana Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Analysis
The Court acknowledged that a defendant’s right to testify is protected by the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44 (1987). Under Weaver, the Court recognized three classifications of structural error: (1) errors protecting interests other than accuracy, (2) errors whose effects are too difficult to measure, and (3) errors that always produce fundamental unfairness. The Court determined that denial of the right to testify qualifies as structural error under the first classification because, as the U.S. Supreme Court observed in Rock, the right to testify “is even more fundamental to a personal defense than the right to self-representation.”
However, the Court ruled that finding structural error does not end the analysis. The Court explained that automatic reversal may apply when structural errors are raised on direct review, but “key factors justify a different standard for evaluating a structural error depending on whether it is raised on direct review or raised instead in a claim alleging ineffective assistance of counsel.” Weaver. On direct review, witness memories remain fresh and physical evidence intact. In contrast, on collateral review, memories have faded, evidence may be lost, and finality interests carry greater weight, according to the Court. Because Turner’s claim arose on collateral review and alleged attorney misconduct rather than judicial error, the Court concluded that Strickland governs.
The Court rejected harmless error analysis as an alternative framework. Harmless error places the burden on the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error was harmless. The Court reasoned that imposing this burden on the State would be illogical where defense counsel, not a state actor, caused the constitutional violation.
The Court expressly overruled Hampton in two respects. First, automatic reversal is not required on collateral review when defense counsel prevents a defendant from testifying. Second, substantiating evidence exclusively from defense counsel is not necessary to prove the claim. While proof from trial counsel is not mandatory, the defendant bears the burden under Strickland, and the Court instructed that “sufficient corroborating substantiation apart from the defendant’s own testimony is required.”
Because the trial court made no findings regarding deficient performance or prejudice, the record was insufficient for appellate resolution. The Court noted that Turner’s potential testimony, allegedly that the incident was a failed drug transaction rather than a robbery, did not appear fully developed in the record. Thus, the Court remanded for a hearing to determine whether Turner can satisfy Strickland’s requirements.
Conclusion
Accordingly, the Court reversed the Court of Appeal and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. See: State v. Turner, 429 So. 3d 179 (La. 2026).
As a digital subscriber to Criminal Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
