Source: http://www.apamonitor-digital.org/apamonitor/20160708?pg=27
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 02:03:13+00:00

Document:
In the sentencing phase of capital cases, mitigating evidence can be the deciding factor in whether a defendant gets life without parole or the death penalty. The U.S. Supreme Court has defined mitigating evidence as any feature of a defendant’s character or history, or characteristics of the offense, that may convince the fact-finder to impose a sentence less than death (Lockett v. Ohio, 1978). The court has also held that all relevant mitigating evidence must be considered by the sentencer (Eddings v. Oklahoma, 1982).
Defense attorneys in capital cases are required to conduct an investigation of all reasonably available mitigating evidence to satisfy the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of effective counsel (Wiggins v. Smith, 2003). Yet evidence suggests this often does not happen. That is why most capital appeals are based on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. However, not only is it more difficult for capital defendants to win on appeal, but the standard for ineffective assistance of counsel is difficult to satisfy because a defendant must show that counsel’s performance was deficient and there is a reasonable probability that the trial outcome would have been different if the counsel had been better.
Several Supreme Court cases shed light on what qualifies as ineffective counsel in capital cases. In Williams v. Taylor (2000), the court found that an attorney did not conduct a thorough background investigation of his client because he failed to introduce evidence in the defendant’s favor. In Rompilla v. Beard (2005), defense counsel knew that the prosecution relied on the defendant’s conviction file, but failed to examine it. The court held that defense counsel had a duty to make reasonable efforts to review all evidence that the attorney knows the prosecutor will likely use as aggravating evidence. And in Porter v. McCollum (2009), the court found ineffective assistance of counsel when the defense attorney presented no evidence of the defendant’s history of childhood abuse, brain abnormality or cognitive deficiencies.
Keesler, 2011; Heilbrun, DeMatteo, Holliday, & LaDuke, 2014).
capabilities that may have affected a defendant’s life course.
factors may buffer the effect of risk factors.
• DeMatteo, D., Murrie, D. C., Anumba, N. M., & Keesler, M. E. (2011). Forensic mental health assessments in death penalty cases. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
• Heilbrun, K., DeMatteo, D., Holliday, S. B., & LaDuke, C. (Eds.). (2014). Forensic mental health assessment: A casebook (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
evidence that informs a defendant’s sentence.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.