Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 446.0

529US2

Unit: $U46

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

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

371

Opinion of the Court

that the same experts who had testiﬁed on the State’s behalf
at trial believed that Williams, if kept in a “structured envi-
ronment,” would not pose a future danger to society.
Id.,
at 313–314.

Counsel’s failure to discover and present this and other
signiﬁcant mitigating evidence was “below the range ex-
pected of reasonable, professional competent assistance of
counsel.”
Id., at 424. Counsel’s performance thus “did not
measure up to the standard required under the holding of
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668 (1984), and [if it
had,] there is a reasonable probability that the result of the
sentencing phase would have been different.”
Id., at 429.
Judge Ingram therefore recommended that Williams be
granted a rehearing on the sentencing phase of his trial.

The Virginia Supreme Court did not accept that recom-
mendation. Williams v. Warden, 254 Va. 16, 487 S. E. 2d
194 (1997). Although it assumed, without deciding, that
trial counsel had been ineffective, id., at 23–26, 487 S. E. 2d,
at 198, 200, it disagreed with the trial judge’s conclusion that
Williams had suffered sufﬁcient prejudice to warrant relief.
Treating the prejudice inquiry as a mixed question of law
and fact, the Virginia Supreme Court accepted the factual
determination that available evidence in mitigation had not
been presented at the trial, but held that the trial judge had
misapplied the law in two respects. First, relying on our
decision in Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U. S. 364 (1993), the
court held that it was wrong for the trial judge to rely “ ‘on
mere outcome determination’ ” when assessing prejudice, 254
Va., at 23, 487 S. E. 2d, at 198 (quoting Lockhart, 506 U. S.,
at 369). Second, it construed the trial judge’s opinion as
having “adopted a per se approach” that would establish
prejudice whenever any mitigating evidence was omitted.
254 Va., at 26, 487 S. E. 2d, at 200.

The court then reviewed the prosecution evidence sup-
porting the “future dangerousness” aggravating circum-
stance, reciting Williams’ criminal history, including the sev-