In the 1985 case Nix v. Whiteside, the US Supreme Court ruled that an attorney's refusal to cooperate with a client in presenting perjured testimony did not violate the client's Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. The defendant, Whiteside, was charged with murder and his defense attorney refused to allow him to testify falsely about seeing a weapon in the victim's hand. When convicted, Whiteside sought habeas corpus relief arguing ineffective assistance of counsel due to his lawyer’s refusal for him to commit perjury on stand. The District Court denied relief but it was granted by the Court of Appeals which held that this violated his constitutional rights as he had been deprived of opportunity for acquittal via self-defense argument based on false claim about weapon sighting. However, upon reaching Supreme Court they reversed this decision stating no violation occurred since there is no right under Constitution or any precedent allowing use of false testimony or condoning perjury.

In the dissenting opinion for Nix v. Whiteside, Justice Brennan argued that the majority's decision was based on a misunderstanding of professional responsibility and legal ethics. He contended that an attorney should not threaten to disclose client confidences or withdraw representation in order to dissuade a client from perjury. Instead, he suggested that attorneys should counsel their clients about the consequences of perjury and work with them to present truthful testimony without violating confidentiality rules. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's view that there was no constitutional violation because Whiteside had not actually committed perjury; instead, Brennan believed this approach ignored potential coercion by defense counsel which could infringe upon Sixth Amendment rights.