Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 324.0

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

163 

Opinion of Stevens, J. 

“Sympathy,  of  course,  is  not  part  of  your  consideration. 
And even if it was, certainly, don’t look to him for sym­
pathy,  because he  demands  none.  And, ladies  and  gen­
tlemen,  when  you  turn  and  look  at  Frank  Spisak,  don’t 
look  for  good  deeds,  because  he  has  done  none.  Don’t 
look for good thoughts, because he has none.  He is sick, 
he is twisted.  He is demented, and he is never going to 
be any different.”  465 F. 3d, at 705 (internal quotation 
marks omitted). 

And then the strategy really broke down: At no point did 
counsel endeavor to direct his negative statements about his 
client  toward  an  express  appeal  for  leniency.5  On  the  con­
trary,  counsel  concluded  by  telling  the  jury  that  “whatever 
you  do,  we  are  going  to  be  proud  of  you,”  ibid.  (internal 
quotation marks omitted), which I take to mean that, in coun­
sel’s  view,  “either  outcome,  death  or  life,  would  be  a  valid 
conclusion,” ibid. 

Spisak’s crimes, and the seemingly unmitigated hatred mo­
tivating  their  commission,  were truly  awful.  But  that  does 
not excuse a lawyer’s duty to represent his client within the 
bounds of prevailing professional norms.  The mere fact that 
counsel, laudably, may have had a “strategy” to build rapport 
with the jury and lessen the impact of the prosecution’s case 
does  not  excuse  counsel’s  utter  failure  to  achieve  either  of 
these  objectives  through  his  closing  argument.  In  short, 
counsel’s argument grossly transgressed the bounds of what 
constitutionally competent counsel would have done in a sim­
ilar situation. 

III 

Notwithstanding  these  two  serious  constitutional  errors, 
I agree with the Court that these errors do not entitle Spisak 

5 Counsel did attempt to appeal to the jury’s sense of humanity, perhaps 
implicitly  suggesting  that  humane  people  do  not  condemn  others,  espe­
cially  those  with  mental  illness,  to  death.  App.  to  Pet.  for  Cert.  339a– 
341a.  But counsel never requested a life sentence on behalf of his client.