Opinion ID: 795103
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Counsel's Failure to Attempt to Rehabilitate Constituted Deficient Performance

Text: 120 The majority relies much on Strickland 's presumption that an attorney's conduct is strategic unless proven otherwise. The presumption of strategy is inappropriate in this case, however, because Petitioner has successfully rebutted it. 3 In the instant case, Petitioner has submitted an affidavit from an experienced death penalty defender, Gerald Simmons. According to Simmons, it is standard practice for a death penalty defender to attempt to rehabilitate scrupled jurors and to object to their exclusion. In fact, Simmons states that it is unacceptable not to attempt to rehabilitate scrupled jurors or object to their exclusion. 121 Simmons statements are supported by the 2003 ABA Guidelines on Death Penalty Representation. 4 Guideline 10.10.2 indicates that death penalty defenders should be familiar with techniques to life qualify the jury and rehabilitate scrupled jurors. The commentary to 10.10.2 further explains: 122 Counsel should conduct a voir dire that is broad enough to expose those prospective jurors who are unable or unwilling to follow the applicable sentencing law, whether because they will automatically vote for death in certain circumstances or because they are unwilling to consider mitigating evidence. Counsel should also develop a strategy for rehabilitating those prospective jurors who have indicated opposition to the death penalty. 123 ABA Guideline 10.10.2, commentary; see also Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688, 104 S.Ct. 2052 (noting that ABA guidelines reflect prevailing professional norms). In light of Simmons' affidavit and the ABA guidelines, there is no reason for this Court to presume that counsel's conduct during voir dire was strategic. In other words, counsel's failure to attempt to rehabilitate the scrupled jurors or object to their exclusion was objectively unreasonable in light of prevailing professional norms. 124