Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 312.0

Cite as: 558 U. S. 139 (2010) 

151 

Opinion of the Court 

Spisak  and  his  supporting  amici  say  that  this  argument 
was constitutionally inadequate because: (1) It overly empha­
sized  the  gruesome  nature  of  the  killings;  (2)  it  overly  em­
phasized Spisak’s threats to continue his crimes; (3) it under­
stated  the  facts  upon  which  the  experts  based  their  mental 
illness conclusions; (4) it said little or nothing about any other 
possible  mitigating circumstance;  and (5)  it made  no explicit 
request that the jury return a verdict against death. 

We  assume  for  present  purposes  that  Spisak  is  correct 
that the closing argument was inadequate.  We nevertheless 
ﬁnd  no  “reasonable  probability”  that  a  better  closing  argu­
ment  without  these  defects  would  have  made  a  signiﬁcant 
difference. 

Any  different,  more  adequate  closing  argument  would 
have  taken  place  in  the  following  context:  Spisak  admitted 
that  he  had  committed  three  murders  and  two  other  shoot­
ings.  Spisak’s  defense  at  the  guilt  phase  of  the  trial  con­
sisted  of  an  effort  by  counsel  to  show  that  Spisak  was  not 
guilty  by  reason  of  insanity.  And  counsel,  apparently  hop­
ing  to  demonstrate  Spisak’s  mentally  defective  condition, 
called him to the stand. 

Spisak testiﬁed that he had shot and killed Horace Ricker­
son,  Timothy  Sheehan,  and  Brian  Warford.  He  also  ad­
mitted that he had shot and tried to kill John Hardaway, and 
shot at Coletta Dartt.  He committed these crimes, he said, 
because  he  was  a  follower  of  Adolf  Hitler,  who  was  Spisak’s 
“spiritual  leader”  in  a  “war”  for  “survival”  of  “the  Aryan 
people.”  4  id.,  at  1343–1344,  1396  (July  5,  1983).  He  said 
that  he  had  purchased  guns  and  stockpiled  ammunition  to 
further  this  war.  Id.,  at  1406–1408.  And  he  had  hoped  to 
“create terror” at Cleveland State University, because it was 
“one  of  the  prime  targets”  where  the  “Jews  and  the 
system . . . are brainwashing the youth.”  Id., at 1426–1428. 
Spisak then said that in February 1982 he had shot Ricker­
son,  who  was  black,  because  Rickerson  had  made  a  sexual 
advance on  Spisak in  a university  bathroom.  He expressed