Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-507_h315.pdf
Page Number: 4.0

4 

MAYS v. HINES 

Per Curiam 

first  at  the  motel  and  then  at  a  nearby  restaurant,  Jones 
became  impatient  and helped  himself to  a  room  key from 
the  office.    Upon  finding  the  body,  he  quickly  returned  to 
his  vehicle—a  fact  confirmed  by  his  companion  who 
watched through the room’s open curtains as Jones entered 
and left.  Jones then called the authorities, drove his com-
panion home, and returned to the motel to meet the sheriff. 
  The postconviction proceedings also revealed that Hines’ 
attorney was generally aware of Jones’ affair from the out-
set, yet had decided to spare him the embarrassment of ag-
gressively  pursuing  the  matter.    Hines  v.  State,  2004  WL 
1567120, *8 (Tenn. Crim. App., July 14, 2004).  But despite 
Hines’ current insistence that this choice amounted to inef-
fective assistance of counsel, the Tennessee postconviction 
court  found  no  prejudice.    Id.,  at  *22,  *27–*28;  see  also 
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668, 687 (1984) (“[T]he 
defendant must show that . . . counsel’s errors were so seri-
ous as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial”).  The court 
stressed “the strength of proof against [Hines],” and it dis-
missed as “ ‘farfetched’ ” that trial counsel should have ac-
cused  Jones  of  committing  (and  self-reporting)  a  grisly 
crime in a public place where he was “known by the staff.”  
Hines, 2004 WL 1567120, *27.  Such an argument, the court 
explained,  “could  have  resulted  in  a  loss  of  credibility  for 
the defense.”  Ibid.  The court also observed that the emer-
gence of a new corroborating witness—Jones’ companion—
further undermined any suggestion that he was the culprit.  
Id., at *28.  And though Jones’ evolving story deprived the 
jury of all the facts, the court reasoned that his “true pur-
pose for being at the [m]otel” had little relevance to Hines’ 
conviction or sentence.  Ibid. 
  Sixteen years later, a divided panel of the Sixth Circuit 
disagreed.  814 Fed. Appx. 898 (2020).  According to the ma-
jority, a better investigation “could have helped the defense 
to  credibly  cast  Jones  as  an  alternative suspect, or  at the 
very least seriously undermine his testimony.”  Id., at 938.