Document: 537 U.S. 19 WOODFORD, WARDENv.VISCIOTTI. No. 02-137. Supreme Court of United States. Decided November 4, 2002. Respondent killed one person and seriously wounded another during a robbery. A California jury convicted him murder sentenced to death. The State affirmed. In subsequently denying his state habeas corpus petition, that court assumed respondent's trial counsel provided constitutionally inadequate representation the trial's penalty phase, but found it did not prejudice jury's sentencing decision. Federal District later granted respondent federal relief as sentence, finding he had been denied effective assistance phase. affirming, Ninth Circuit ruled Court's decision ran afoul 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) because was "contrary to" Strickland v. Washington, 466 668, an "unreasonable application" this clearly established principles. Held: Circuit's exceeds 2254(d)'s limits on review. First, erred in holding applied wrong standard for evaluating prejudice. Under Strickland, defendant need only establish "reasonable probability" that, counsel's unprofessional errors, result proceeding would have different. Id., at 694. specifically rejected higher standard: must prove more likely than outcome altered. 693. held used "probable" without modifier "reasonably" three places its opinion. readiness attribute error is inconsistent with presumption courts know follow law, incompatible highly deferential state-court rulings. also involved unreasonable application precedents. There no support conclusion failed take into account totality available mitigating evidence consider prejudicial impact actions. aggravating factors were so severe, suffered from (assumed) inadequacy. Whether or reached same conclusion, permissible under unless court's objectively unreasonable. Certiorari granted; 288 F.3d 1097, reversed. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT APPEALS NINTH CIRCUIT. PER CURIAM. 1 States Appeals affirmed grant John Visciotti after concluding prejudiced by ineffective trial. 1097 (2002). Because imposed review 2254(d), we reverse. 2 * co-worker, Brian Hefner, devised plan rob two fellow employees, Timothy Dykstra Michael Wolbert, 8, 1982, their payday. They invited pair join them party. As four driving supposed destination Wolbert's car, asked Wolbert stop remote area could relieve himself. When all men left pulled gun, demanded victims' wallets (which turned out be almost empty), got tell where car cash hidden. After Hefner retrieved cash, walked over seated shot chest distance feet. then raised gun both hands times, torso shoulder, finally, about feet, eye. fled scene car. miraculously survived testify against them. 3 first-degree murder, attempted armed robbery, special-circumstance committed commission determined should suffer conviction sentence. People Visciotti, Cal. 4th 1, 825 P.2d 388 (1992). 4 filed petition writ Court, alleging counsel. That appointed referee hold evidentiary hearing make findings fact—after which, briefing merits, lengthy re 14 325, 926 987 (1996). concluded 353, 356-357, P.2d, 1004, 1006. 5 Central California. phase trial, appealed Circuit. 6 correctly observed can if meets requirements which provides: 7 "An behalf custody pursuant judgment shall respect any claim adjudicated merits proceedings adjudication claim— 8 "(1) resulted contrary to, of, States; 9 "(2) based determination facts light presented proceeding." 10 conditions 2254(d)(1), relief. See F.3d, 1118-1119. petitioned certiorari, now along motion leave proceed forma pauperis. II 11 We first our 668 (1984). probability different," id., 694 (emphasis added); proposition altered, read opinion case applying latter test— requiring prove, preponderance evidence, 1108-1109. is, view, mischaracterization opinion, expressed proper 12 began analysis inquiry setting forth criterion, citation relevant passage Strickland; proceeded "[t]he question answer whether there reasonable errors omissions, authority balance warrant imposition death penalty," again Strickland. 4th, 352, 1003 (citing supra, 696). Twice, framed turning favorable penalty-phase verdict. 1003, 1004. following passage, moreover, central analysis: 13 "In Fields, . addressed process assesses capital was, allegedly, incompetent failing present evidence: `What kind showing will undermine confidence has verdict? cases cites offer some guidance. Agurs ., cited spoke doubt, although necessarily such character create substantial likelihood acquittal. Valenzuela-Bernal second referred "material ways merely cumulative. ."'" 353-354, "Undermin[ing] outcome" exactly Strickland's description what meant standard. "A sufficient outcome." 15 Despite these citations quotations from, proof prescribes reason: (there fact fourth) term "reasonably." 1108-1109, n. 11. This error. painstakingly describes Its occasional shorthand reference use may perhaps imprecise, considered repudiation own indulgence imprecision. Mickens Taylor, 535 162, 166 (2002) ("probable effect upon outcome"); Williams 529 362, 393 (2000) ("probably affected outcome"). 16 made effort reconcile use, elsewhere, "reasonably probable," nor even acknowledge, much less discuss, framing "undermines confidence" proceeding. law. See, e.g., Parker Dugger, 498 308, 314-316 (1991); Walton Arizona, 497 639, 653 (1990), overruled other grounds, Ring 536 584 (2002); LaVallee Delle Rose, 410 690, 694-695 (1973) (per curiam). It "highly rulings," Lindh Murphy, 521 320, 333, (1997), demands decisions given benefit doubt. B 17 regardless determining 1118. Specifically, deficiencies "objectively unreasonable." Ibid. clause, issue simply concludes independent incorrectly. Bell Cone, 685, 698-699 Williams, 411. Rather, applicant's burden show manner. An law different incorrect law." 410; see Bell, observe distinction, ultimately substituted court, contravention 2254(d). 18 "objective unreasonableness" perception (1) "take account" "to consider" certain actions, (2) "aggravating overwhelming." contentions. All having consideration described careful asserted "completely ignored Visciotti's brain damage," "multiple concessions closing argument." However, expert "had testified guilt [Visciotti] minimal injury type associated impulse disorder learning disorder." 354, And noted instructions, introduced "might phase," despite argument. focused failure introduce background, including testimony "growing up dysfunctional family continual psychological abuse." 355, 1005. discussion back lengthy, detailed undiscovered might 341-345, 996-998. "troubled background," 1005, included being "berated," "markedly lacking self-esteem depressed," "born club feet," "feelings inadequacy, incompetence, inferiority," like, moving "20 times" while growing up, possibly suffering "seizure disorder," 341-343, 996-998, overwhelming. judgment, circumstances crime (a cold-blooded execution-style killing victim another, course preplanned robbery) coupled prior offenses (the knifing man, stabbing pregnant woman she lay bed trying protect her unborn baby) devastating. 1005; 33-34, 402. severe disagreed assessment, suggesting deliberated full day requested additional guidance meaning "moral justification" "extreme duress" Perhaps so. "under enough convince incorrectly." U.S., 699. scheme leaves primary responsibility judgments, authorizes federal-court intervention when here. reach "we think very least assessment `unreasonable.'" 701. Habeas therefore 20 21 22 Reversed.

Category: 0