Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 448

529US2

Unit: $U46

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

Cite as: 529 U. S. 362 (2000)

373

Opinion of the Court

and he rejected the argument that counsel’s failure to con-
duct an adequate investigation had been a strategic decision
to rely almost entirely on the fact that Williams had volun-
tarily confessed.

According to Williams’ trial counsel’s testimony before the
state habeas court, counsel did not fail to seek Williams’ ju-
venile and social services records because he thought they
would be counterproductive, but because counsel errone-
ously believed that “ ‘state law didn’t permit it.’ ” App. 470.
Counsel also acknowledged in the course of the hearings that
information about Williams’ childhood would have been im-
portant in mitigation. And counsel’s failure to contact a po-
tentially persuasive character witness was likewise not a
conscious strategic choice, but simply a failure to return that
witness’ phone call offering his service.
Id., at 470–471.
Finally, even if counsel neglected to conduct such an investi-
gation at the time as part of a tactical decision, the District
Judge found, tactics as a matter of reasonable performance
could not justify the omissions.

Turning to the prejudice issue, the judge determined that
there was “ ‘a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s
unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would
have been different.’ Strickland, 466 U. S. at 694.”
Id., at
473. He found that the Virginia Supreme Court had errone-
ously assumed that Lockhart had modiﬁed the Strickland
standard for determining prejudice, and that it had made an
important error of fact in discussing its ﬁnding of no preju-
dice.5 Having introduced his analysis of Williams’ claim

was borderline mentally retarded, though he was found competent to
stand trial.” App. 465–469.

5 “Speciﬁcally, the Virginia Supreme Court found no prejudice, reason-
ing: ‘The mitigation evidence that the prisoner says, in retrospect, his trial
counsel should have discovered and offered barely would have altered the
proﬁle of this defendant that was presented to the jury. At most, this
evidence would have shown that numerous people, mostly relatives,
thought that defendant was nonviolent and could cope very well in a struc-
tured environment.’ Williams, 487 S. E. 2d at 200. The Virginia Su-