Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 471.0

529US2

Unit: $U46

[10-07-01 17:18:24] PAGES PGT: OPIN

396

WILLIAMS v. TAYLOR

Opinion of the Court

Counsel failed to introduce available evidence that Wil-
liams was “borderline mentally retarded” and did not ad-
vance beyond sixth grade in school.
Id., at 595. They
failed to seek prison records recording Williams’ commenda-
tions for helping to crack a prison drug ring and for return-
ing a guard’s missing wallet, or the testimony of prison ofﬁ-
cials who described Williams as among the inmates “least
likely to act in a violent, dangerous or provocative way.”
Id., at 569, 588. Counsel failed even to return the phone call
of a certiﬁed public accountant who had offered to testify
that he had visited Williams frequently when Williams was
incarcerated as part of a prison ministry program, that Wil-
liams “seemed to thrive in a more regimented and structured
environment,” and that Williams was proud of the carpentry
degree he earned while in prison.

Id., at 563–566.

Of course, not all of the additional evidence was favorable
to Williams. The juvenile records revealed that he had been
thrice committed to the juvenile system—for aiding and
abetting larceny when he was 11 years old, for pulling a false
ﬁre alarm when he was 12, and for breaking and entering
Id., at 534–536. But as the Federal Dis-
when he was 15.
trict Court correctly observed, the failure to introduce the
comparatively voluminous amount of evidence that did speak
in Williams’ favor was not justiﬁed by a tactical decision to
focus on Williams’ voluntary confession. Whether or not
those omissions were sufﬁciently prejudicial to have affected
the outcome of sentencing, they clearly demonstrate that
trial counsel did not fulﬁll their obligation to conduct a thor-
ough investigation of the defendant’s background. See 1
ABA Standards for Criminal Justice 4–4.1, commentary,
p. 4–55 (2d ed. 1980).

We are also persuaded, unlike the Virginia Supreme Court,
that counsel’s unprofessional service prejudiced Williams
within the meaning of Strickland. After hearing the addi-
tional evidence developed in the postconviction proceedings,
the very judge who presided at Williams’ trial, and who once