Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 184.0

Cite as: 558 U. S. 15 (2009) 

23 

Per Curiam 

tive attributes, Schick should have produced testimony about 
Belmontes’ “strong character as a child in the face of adver­
sity.”  Ibid.  Schick should have illustrated that Belmontes 
was “kind, responsible, and likeable”; that he “got along well 
with  his  siblings”  and  was  “respectful  towards  his  grand­
parents  despite  their  disapproval  of  his  mixed  racial  back­
ground”;  and  that  he  “participated  in  community  activities, 
kept up in school and got along with his teachers before [an] 
illness, and made friends easily.”  Ibid. 

But as recounted above and recognized by the state courts 
and, originally, this very panel, Schick did put on substantial 
mitigation evidence, much of it targeting the same “humaniz­
ing”  theme  the  Ninth  Circuit  highlighted.  Compare,  e. g., 
ibid.  with  Record  2317  (death  of  10-month-old  sister);  id., 
at  2319,  2325  (difﬁcult  childhood);  id.,  at  2314–2315  (family 
member’s  addictions);  id.,  at  2314–2315,  2324–2325  (family 
strife  and  abuse);  id.,  at  2317,  2319,  2347–2348,  2397  (strong 
character  as  a  child);  id.,  at  2326–2327  (close  relationship 
with  siblings);  id.,  at  2317–2319  (close  relationship  with 
grandparents); id., at 2348–2351 (participation in community 
religious  events);  see  also,  e. g.,  Belmontes’  Traverse  to  Re­
spondent’s  Return  to  Pet.  for  Writ  of  Habeas  Corpus  in 
No. S–89–0736–EJG–JFM (ED Cal.), p. 64 (“[C]ounsel’s pres­
entation  was  arguably  adequate  only  with  respect  to  [evi­
dence]  of  ‘humanizing’  petitioner”).  The  sentencing  jury 
was thus “well acquainted” with Belmontes’ background and 
potential  humanizing  features.  Schriro  v.  Landrigan,  550 
U. S.  465,  481  (2007).  Additional  evidence  on  these  points 
would have offered an insigniﬁcant beneﬁt, if any at all. 

The Ninth Circuit also determined that both the evidence 
Schick  presented  and  the  additional  evidence  it  proposed 
would  have  carried  greater  weight  if  Schick  had  submitted 
expert testimony.  Such testimony could “make connections 
between  the  various  themes  in  the  mitigation  case  and  ex­
plain to the jury how they could have contributed to Belmon­
tes’s  involvement  in  criminal  activity.”  529  F.  3d,  at  853.