Opinion ID: 1133749
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Failure to consult the American Bar Association (ABA) Guidelines and Other Resources

Text: In its death penalty jurisprudence, and especially in its most recent decisions in Wiggins, Rompilla and Williams, the United States Supreme Court has repeatedly cited ABA standards to measure counsel's duty. When Hannon's counsel was asked if he had attended any death penalty seminars where defense attorneys are taught how to conduct a death penalty trial in accord with ABA standards, he expressed disdain for such professional activities: No. And I'm not sure that you teach them that. You give them suggestions on what to do. But teach them? You know, you've got toyou've got to when you're in the game, when you're in the heat of battle, you've got toyou've got to fight the way you think it's supposed to be done. And, you know, you can go to a school, but I had a lot of practical experience in these cases [as a prosecutor]. Hannon's counsel had never tried a capital case as a defense attorney, and he did not consult with any experienced lawyers in capital cases. Hannon's counsel had prosecuted capital cases before, but was unfamiliar with the ABA Guidelines for defense counsel conducting death penalty cases, which would have provided guidance to Hannon's counsel and which have consistently been cited by the United States Supreme Court as representative of prevailing standards for competent counsel. [30] These guidelines stress the importance of not only defense counsel's duty to investigate into mitigating factors, but also the idea that strategy can often shift between the guilt and penalty phases of a capital trial. ABA Guidelines 11.7.1(A) (stating that in forming a defense theory, counsel should consider both the guilt/innocence phase and the penalty phase, and seek a theory that will be effective through both phases). ABA Guideline 11.4.1 states that investigation for the preparation of the sentencing phase should occur immediately even if the client initially asserts that no mitigation is to be offered. ABA Guidelines 11.4.1(C). In addition, [i]f inconsistencies between guilt/innocence and penalty phase defenses arise, counsel should seek to minimize them by procedural or substantive tactics. ABA Guidelines 11.7.1(B). Moreover, counsel should consider interviewing witnesses familiar with aspects of the client's life history that might affect the likelihood that the client committed the charged offense(s), possible mitigating reasons for the offense(s), and/or other mitigating evidence to show why the client should not be sentenced to death. ABA Guidelines 11.4.1(D)(3)(B). Also, counsel should consider presenting witnesses at the sentencing phase that relate[] to the client's life and development, as well as [e]xpert witnesses to provide medical, psychological, sociological or other explanations for the offense(s) for which the client is being sentenced, to give a favorable opinion as to the client's capacity for rehabilitation, etc. and/or to rebut expert testimony presented by the prosecutor. ABA Guidelines 11.8.3(F)(1), (2). As with his disdain for professional education, when asked about the ABA guidelines, Hannon's counsel replied, I don't care what the . . . American Bar Association says. I don't care what anybody says. This is a decision I made. I'm the guy that makes those decisions [with the input of] the client, the parents, the sister, my co-counsel.