Case: Rompilla v. Beard (2005) Citation: Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374 (2005). Facts of the Case On January 14, 1988, James Scanlon was found dead in a store. Scanlon’s body was stabbed with a knife and after that set on fire. Rompilla admitted that he committed the crime but soon addressed the new court to review the case that did not involve important mitigating factors. Rompilla (the petitioner) was sentenced to the death penalty for committing murder and several other crimes. New lawyers of the defendant stated that not all mitigating evidence was presented in the court, which could have affected the jury’s decision. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the court’s decision, while the District Court found that the State Supreme Court was not reasonable as Rompilla’s troubled childhood, alcohol abuse history, and mental illness were not taken into account. The Third Circuit decided that the decision of the State Supreme Court was reasonable as the counsel examined the major mitigating factors, including previous felony history, and reasonably assumed that further investigation was unnecessary and could be a waste of time and other resources. Major Issues Decided The major issues were concerned with the extent to which the council had to review mitigating factors. The principle of reasonableness is central to the case. Appellant & Position Rompilla and his new lawyers stressed that counsel did not pay enough attention to important mitigating factors, including the mental illness of the defendant, his previous felony records, his troubled childhood, and substance abuse history. The appellant stressed that the jury would have found him not guilty if these factors had been presented in the court. Appellee & Position The US Supreme Court decided that the defense counsel failed to pay sufficient attention to important details and examine all the mitigating factors to the fullest. The court stressed that although the defendant and the family could be insufficiently cooperative, the defendant’s defense counsel was responsible for making reasonable efforts to examine all possible mitigating factors. Synopsis of Majority Opinion The majority concluded that the defense counsel did not make reasonable efforts to examine all mitigating factors and present them in the court, which could have influenced the jury’s decision. The majority decided that it was obvious that the defendant’s previous felony history would be the major aggravating factor. Rompilla’s lawyers had to make reasonable efforts and examine all the details of his previous convictions. The majority also concluded that the court failed to find the lawyers’ examination inadequate, which led to certain prejudice. This prejudice led to the jury’s decision and the corresponding sentence. It is also emphasized that the defendant was not cooperative, and this lack of cooperation was the background for a more detailed investigation of meaningful aspects of the case. Justices in Majority Souter, O’Connor, Breyer, Stevens, Ginsburg Synopsis of Concurrent Opinion (if any) Justice O’Connor had a concurring opinion and stressed that there were three factors that made the defense counsel’s decision not to examine in more detail Rompilla’s previous felony history unreasonable. The attorneys knew that prior conviction would become central to the prosecutor’s case. This circumstance was enough to invest more time in the examination of the case.