The Supreme Court Has Reversed a Death Sentence Based on Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Paul Wallin
January 29, 2010
The United States Supreme Court has unanimously reversed the death sentence of an accused due to his counsel's failure to uncover and present evidence at the sentencing phase of his death penalty trial. The defendant had a history that included military service in combat situations, struggles to regain normality upon his return from war, his childhood history of physical abuse, his brain abnormality, difficulty reading and writing, as well as limited formal education. The justices have concluded failure to uncover this mitigation evidence clearly constituted deficient performance of counsel, and that such deficient performance was prejudicial to the defendant. (Porter v. McCollum (2009) 130 S. Ct. 447.)
Porter was found guilty of two counts of first-degree murder for the shooting of his former girlfriend and her boyfriend. During the penalty phase of his trial, the defense put on Porter's ex-wife as the only witness and read an excerpt from a deposition. The sum total of the mitigating evidence was inconsistent testimony about Porter's behavior while intoxicated and testimony that Porter had a good relationship with his son.
Although his lawyer told the jury that Porter "has other handicaps that weren't apparent during the trial" and Porter was not "mentally healthy," he did not put easily discoverable additional evidence that would have humanized the defendant and allowed the jury to accurately assess his moral culpability. Among them was Porterīs heroic military service during the Korean War for which he had received two Purple Hearts, his history of physical abuse and brain abnormality, and his difficulty with reading and writing.
In analyzing the defendantīs federal habeas corpus petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, the high court applied the well-known Strickland v. Washington two-prong test. To prevail under Strickland, there must be a showing that counsel's deficient performance prejudiced the defendant. To establish deficiency, the defendant must show his or her "counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness," and to establish prejudice there must be a showing that "there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different."
Under the first prong, the court held that Porterīs counsel has an obligation to conduct a thorough investigation of the defendantīs background even in situations when the defendant is uncooperative. The Court has found that the investigation conducted by Porterīs counsel "fell short of professional standards" for failing to obtain any of Porter's school, medical, or military service records that could have shed light on the evidence necessary for his penalty-phase trial.
Due to the courts finding that Porterīs counsel representation was deficient, it then had to determine whether this deficient performance had prejudiced the defendant. To assess a reasonable probability that, but for Porterīs counsel unprofessional errors, he would have received a different sentence, the court is engaged in a balancing test weighing the totality of the available mitigation evidence adduced both at trial and in the habeas proceeding against the evidence in aggravation.
In light of the uncovered evidence, the justices were persuaded it was objectively unreasonable to conclude there was no reasonable probability the sentence would have been different if the sentencing judge and jury had heard the significant mitigation evidence that Porter's counsel had failed to discover and present at the sentencing phase of his death penalty trial. Thus, the defendant will be given a new trial as to the penalty phase of his trial.
The attorneys at Wallin & Klarich over 30 years experience fighting serious felony charges. When choosing a San Diego criminal defense law firm, it is essential that you choose a law firm like Wallin and Klarich that has a team of highly skilled attorneys who can help you or your loved one. Call Wallin & Klarich today at 1-888-280-6839 for a case evaluation or visit www.wklaw.com for more important information.
Porter was found guilty of two counts of first-degree murder for the shooting of his former girlfriend and her boyfriend. During the penalty phase of his trial, the defense put on Porter's ex-wife as the only witness and read an excerpt from a deposition. The sum total of the mitigating evidence was inconsistent testimony about Porter's behavior while intoxicated and testimony that Porter had a good relationship with his son.
Although his lawyer told the jury that Porter "has other handicaps that weren't apparent during the trial" and Porter was not "mentally healthy," he did not put easily discoverable additional evidence that would have humanized the defendant and allowed the jury to accurately assess his moral culpability. Among them was Porterīs heroic military service during the Korean War for which he had received two Purple Hearts, his history of physical abuse and brain abnormality, and his difficulty with reading and writing.
In analyzing the defendantīs federal habeas corpus petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, the high court applied the well-known Strickland v. Washington two-prong test. To prevail under Strickland, there must be a showing that counsel's deficient performance prejudiced the defendant. To establish deficiency, the defendant must show his or her "counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness," and to establish prejudice there must be a showing that "there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different."
Under the first prong, the court held that Porterīs counsel has an obligation to conduct a thorough investigation of the defendantīs background even in situations when the defendant is uncooperative. The Court has found that the investigation conducted by Porterīs counsel "fell short of professional standards" for failing to obtain any of Porter's school, medical, or military service records that could have shed light on the evidence necessary for his penalty-phase trial.
Due to the courts finding that Porterīs counsel representation was deficient, it then had to determine whether this deficient performance had prejudiced the defendant. To assess a reasonable probability that, but for Porterīs counsel unprofessional errors, he would have received a different sentence, the court is engaged in a balancing test weighing the totality of the available mitigation evidence adduced both at trial and in the habeas proceeding against the evidence in aggravation.
In light of the uncovered evidence, the justices were persuaded it was objectively unreasonable to conclude there was no reasonable probability the sentence would have been different if the sentencing judge and jury had heard the significant mitigation evidence that Porter's counsel had failed to discover and present at the sentencing phase of his death penalty trial. Thus, the defendant will be given a new trial as to the penalty phase of his trial.
The attorneys at Wallin & Klarich over 30 years experience fighting serious felony charges. When choosing a San Diego criminal defense law firm, it is essential that you choose a law firm like Wallin and Klarich that has a team of highly skilled attorneys who can help you or your loved one. Call Wallin & Klarich today at 1-888-280-6839 for a case evaluation or visit www.wklaw.com for more important information.
Print
Email
