Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 173

12 

BOBBY  v.  VAN  HOOK 

Per Curiam 

hand” fell “well within the range of professionally reasonable 
judgments.”  466 U. S., at 699.3 

What  is  more,  even  if  Van  Hook’s  counsel  performed  deﬁ­
ciently  by  failing  to  dig  deeper,  he  suffered  no  prejudice  as 
a  result.  See  id.,  at  694.  As  the  Ohio  court  that  rejected 
Van Hook’s state habeas petition found, the afﬁdavits submit­
ted  by  the  witnesses  not  interviewed  show  their  testimony 
would have added nothing of value.  See State v.  Van Hook, 
No.  C–910505,  1992  WL  308350,  *2.  Only  two  witnesses 
even  arguably  would  have  added  new,  relevant  information: 
One of Van Hook’s uncles noted that Van Hook’s mother was 
temporarily  committed  to  a  psychiatric  hospital,  and  Van 
Hook’s stepsister mentioned that his father hit Van Hook fre­
quently  and  tried  to  kill  Van  Hook’s  mother.  App.  to  Pet. 
for  Cert.  227a,  232a.  But  the  trial  court  had  already 
heard—from  Van  Hook’s  mother  herself—that  she  had  been 
“under psychiatric care” more than once.  Id., at 340a.  And 
it  was  already  aware  that  his  father  had  a  violent  nature, 
had  attacked  Van  Hook’s  mother,  and  had  beaten  Van  Hook 
at  least  once.  See  also  id.,  at  305a  (noting  that  Van  Hook 
“suffered  from  a  signiﬁcant  degree  of  neglect  and  abuse” 
throughout  his  “chaotic”  childhood).  Neither  the  Court  of 
Appeals  nor  Van  Hook  has  shown  why  the  minor  additional 
details  the  trial  court  did  not  hear  would  have  made  any 
difference. 

On  the  other  side  of  the  scales,  moreover,  was  the  evi­
dence of the aggravating circumstance the trial court found: 

3 In  addition  to  the  evidence  the  Sixth  Circuit  said  his  attorneys  over­
looked,  Van  Hook  alleges  that  his  lawyers  failed  to  provide  the  expert 
witnesses  with  a  “complete  set  of  relevant  records  or  [his]  complete 
psycho-social  history.”  Brief  in  Opposition  4.  But  he  offers  no  support 
for  that  assertion.  He  further  claims  that  his  counsel  failed  to  obtain  or 
present  records  of  his  military  service  and  prior  hospitalizations,  but  the 
record  shows  that  they  did  review  the  former,  see  App.  to  Pet.  for  Cert. 
380a,  and  that  the  trial  court  learned  (from  one  of  the  written  expert 
reports) all the relevant information Van Hook says it would have gleaned 
from the latter, see id., at 373a–377a.