Document: 540 U.S. 1 YARBOROUGH, WARDEN, ET AL.v.GENTRY. No. 02-1597. Supreme Court of United States. Decided October 20, 2003. At respondent Gentry's California state trial on charges that he stabbed his girlfriend, counsel's closing argument made several key points, but did not highlight some potentially exculpatory evidence. Gentry was convicted. His claim the denied him right to effective assistance counsel rejected direct appeal. subsequent petition for federal habeas relief by District Court, Ninth Circuit reversed. Held: The erred in finding deprived counsel. That is when a defense attorney's performance falls below an objective standard reasonableness and thus prejudices defense. If court has already ineffective-assistance claim, its application governing law must be shown only erroneous, objectively unreasonable. extends arguments, deference tactical decisions particularly important because broad range legitimate strategy at stage. record supports court's conclusion ineffective, evidence highlighted does establish decision Focusing few points may more persuasive than shotgun approach, there strong presumption focuses issues exclusion others reasons, see Strickland v. Washington, 466 668, 690. Here, omitted were so clearly those discussed their omission can attributed professional error constitutional magnitude. Circuit's findings other flaws presentation also do support conclusion. Certiorari granted; 320 F.3d 891, ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT APPEALS NINTH CIRCUIT. PER CURIAM. * Respondent Lionel convicted assault with deadly weapon stabbing Tanaysha Handy. claimed her accidentally during dispute drug dealer. 2 Handy testified prosecution. She stated she recalled being could remember details incident. prosecution then confronted testimony from preliminary hearing had placed hand around throat before twice. 3 Albert Williams, security guard neighboring building, saw Gentry, Handy, another man third-floor window. According swung into Handy's left side object, causing lean forward scream. Williams inconsistent about quality light time, stating variously it "pretty dark" or "getting dark," "it wasn't area "lighted up." See Roe, 896-897 (CA9 2003). 4 own while pushing out way. When asked prior convictions, falsely been once; showed separately burglary, grand theft, battery peace officer, felon possession firearm. He confusion whether plea bargain counted as conviction. 5 In argument, prosecutor expressed sympathy plight pregnant, drug-addicted mother three damaging testimony. accused telling jury "pack lies." id., 897-898. Defense responded following argument: 6 "`I don't have lot say today. Just once I'd like find doesn't know exactly what happened. D. A. tell they stand up here honest I who lying `cause there, ladies gentlemen. [I] there. None 12 you people this courtroom except two one guy parts it, all. Pretty dark. Dark. It light. Those are versions regard saw. can't you. And if sit try happened, I'm know. judge. decide. You heard come truth chair. testify. good things feel good. bad bad. 7 care pregnant. children. why brought closing. What case? stabbed. 8 "`The question is, intend stab her? said accident. he's think convict him. lying, person, lousy addict, stinking thief, jail bird, all contrary, guilty. It's simple that. prison. sake thing ought anything happened April 30th, 1994. 9 "`He Didn't understand term whole spoken doing crime stuff opposed going school. judge man. reason bring jurors different walks life, let them listen testify, will give instructions having your life experience, leaving door, just assume done bunch now thing. 10 thievery girlfriend same pot. fact stole past means girlfriend. sounds jump me, that's [me]. over 11 "`All ask look everything you've make decision. Good decision, it's still would agree; don't, either. "`You us it. who's lying. anybody someone goes on, gentlemen, person witness objecting foundation weren't true. attorney prosecutor, no 13 "`So go back, take time sure want do, 14 "`Thank you.'" Id., 898-899 (one paragraph break omitted). 15 After deliberating six hours, 16 On appeal, argued Appeal contention, review. Appeals We grant State's writ certiorari motion leave proceed forma pauperis reverse. II 17 Sixth Amendment guarantees criminal defendants thereby Wiggins Smith, 539 U. S. 510, 521 (2003); 687 (1984). "contrary to, involved unreasonable of, established Federal law, determined States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). Where, here, challenged, Wiggins, supra, 520-521; Woodford Visciotti, 537 19, 24-25 (2002) (per curiam); Taylor, 529 362, 409 (2000). 18 arguments. Bell Cone, 535 685, 701-702 (2002); Herring New York, 422 853, 865 (1975). Nonetheless, wide latitude deciding how best represent client, Closing arguments should "sharpen clarify resolution trier fact," 862, which sharpen questions many reasonable answers. Indeed, might sometimes sense forgo altogether. Bell, 701-702. Judicial review summation therefore highly deferential—and doubly deferential conducted through lens habeas. 19 these principles, Appeal's opinion cited case setting forth correct evaluating claims concluded ineffective. supported record. points: Williams's inconsistent; personal circumstances irrelevant guilt; turned accidental, acquit believed version events; history guilt, given seriousness charge compared theft offenses; misstatement number times explained lack education. Woven unifying theme—that jury, himself, scene speculate 20 large part various pieces evidence: used drugs day early morning hours hearing; inability relevant issue intent; consistent respects; government call co-worker, stabbing; wound inch deep, suggesting accidental; twice, wound; after retrieve instead moved toward repeating, "she's my girlfriend." F. 3d, 900-901. 21 These potential Some items, such reaction thoroughly ambiguous. well backfired. For example, although hearing, under influence stabbing. And, lacerated stomach diaphragm, spilling stomach's contents chest cavity requiring almost surgery. facts exploited great advantage rebuttal. 22 Even unquestionably defense, follow incompetent failing include them. small approach. As expert advises: "The introduced definitely restricted. Research suggests upper limit present effect." R. Matlon, Opening Statements/Closing Arguments 60 (1993) (citing Calder, Insko, & Yandell, Relation Cognitive Memorial Process Persuasion Simulated Jury Trial, J. Applied Social Psychology 62 (1974)). Another authority says: advocate required summarize comment upon facts, opinions, inferences, case. A address issue, opponent's theory, particular based analysis importance subject ability opponent explain persuasively position finder." Haydock Sonsteng, Advocacy: 3.10, p. 70 (1994). short, judicious selection core exercise discretion. 23 others, reasons rather sheer neglect. Strickland, S., 690 (counsel "strongly presumed" judgment). force where petitioner bases solely record, creating situation "may way knowing seemingly unusual misguided action sound strategic motive." Massaro States, 538 500, 505 (2003). Moreover, even inadvertent, automatic. competence, perfect advocacy judged benefit hindsight. 702; Kimmelman Morrison, 477 365, 382 (1986); 689; States Cronic, 648, 656 To recall words Justice (and former Solicitor General) Jackson: "I every First came planned—as thought, logical, coherent, complete. Second actually presented—interrupted, incoherent, disjointed, disappointing. third utterly devastating thought bed night." Advocacy Before 37 B. 801, 803 (1951). Based case, reasonably conclude failed rebut adequate assistance. Counsel plainly put centerpiece case: regarding "come chair" conflicting; none client's demonstrably lie; contradicting client "three versions." F.3d, 898. 24 found presentation. criticized mentioning "a host hurt position, mattered matter law." 900. Of course mentioned precisely remind legally irrelevant. tactic. Bailey H. Rothblatt, Successful Techniques Criminal Trials 19:23, 461 (2d ed. 1985) ("Face [the defendant's] defects . [and] disregard connected charged"). singled censure truth, though "bad bird." apparently viewed remark gratuitous swipe character. While confessing shortcomings otherwise forgotten, convince aside remembered any event. This sort calculated risk lies heart advocate's By candidly acknowledging shortcomings, built credibility persuaded focus Stein, Argument 204, (1992-1996) ("[I]f certain concessions showing earnestly search comments matters received without usual apprehension surrounding remarks advocate"). Judge Kleinfeld pointed dissenting denial rehearing en banc, criticism applies Clarence Darrow's Leopold Loeb much salvage boys. [Y]our Honor merciful tied rope necks die; them, civilization, behind.'" 895 (quoting Famous American Speeches 1086 (F. Hicks 1925) (reprint 1990)). 25 rebuked making passive request reach verdict, express demand acquittal. But patronizing overconfident low-key stresses jury's autonomy One treatise recommends technique: "Avoid challenging phrasing terms be. [S]cientific research indicates react against lawyer blatantly trying freedom thought." 206, 15. 26 faulted arguing explicitly prove guilt beyond doubt. Counsel's entire presentation, however, point. repeatedly stressed one— nor himself—could truth. very essence reasonable-doubt argument. sure, insist existence doubt require acquit—but count judge's requirement, preserve appearing friend autonomy. 27 Finally, approach ground that, too "implied believe testimony." nothing wrong rhetorical device personalizes doubts anyone eyewitness necessarily have. Winning audience empathy technique dates back Aristotle. P. Lagarias, Effective §§ 2.05-2.06, pp. 99-101 (1989) Aristotle's Rhetoric point "[a] speech indicate speaker shares attitudes listener, turn, listener respond positively views speaker"); 3.03, 112 (deriving principle advice "counsel couch `we,' `you, jury'"). Aristotle Darrow. conclusion—not deficient, disagreement unreasonable—gives little courts primary responsibility supervising trials. 29 30 judgment 31 ordered.

Category: 0