In Nix vs. Whiteside, a defense attorney had persuaded his client not to present testimony that the attorney believed would be false by issuing a warning that he might be allowed to impeach the client's untruthful evidence. The Iowa Supreme Court and the Federal district court found the lawyer's approach constitutionally acceptable, while the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the defendant's constitutional rights had been violated. When the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed the case in 1986, it simply held that the Constitution did not prevent Iowa from imposing penalties on the defendant. The narrow character and limited impact of this decision, however, were masked by sweeping statements in the majority opinion on legal ethics. A number of lower courts have erroneously assumed that dicta on the ethical issues in Whiteside have a constitution dimension. By holding that the actions of Whiteside's attorneys did not violate the Constitution, the Court removed Federal constitutional barriers to State rules of ethics that impose mandatory duties, including disclosure of client perjury,upon attorneys. Whether such an approach is sound policy is left for each State to decide. 161 footnotes.