Document: Cite as: 561 U. S. ____ (2010) 1 Per Curiam SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES DEMARCUS ALI SEARS v. STEPHEN UPTON, WARDEN ON PETITION FOR WRIT CERTIORARI TO GEORGIA No. 09–8854. Decided June 29, 2010 PER CURIAM. According to an expert who testified during state post conviction relief, petitioner Demarcus A. Sears performs at or below the bottom first percentile in several measures of cognitive functioning and reasoning. The cause this abnormality appears be significant frontal lobe brain damage suffered as a child, well drug alcohol abuse his teens. But because—in words trial court—his counsel conducted penalty phase investigation that was “on its face . constitution ally inadequate,” App. Pet. for Cert. 27B, evidence relating Sears’ impairments childhood difficulties not brought light time he sentenced death. After finding constitutionally deficient attorney per formance under framework we set forth Strickland Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), postconvic tion court found itself unable assess whether counsel’s inadequate might have prejudiced Sears. 29B–30B. Because did present some mitigation pen alty phase—but adequate would uncov ered—the determined it could speculate what effect additional been. Id., 30B. Accordingly, denied postconviction relief. 34B. Thereafter, Supreme Court Georgia summarily review claims. 1A. 2 UPTON For reasons follow, is plain from court’s opinion failed apply correct prejudice inquiry established evaluating Sixth Amendment claim. We therefore grant petition writ certiorari, vacate judgment, remand further proceedings inconsistent with opinion.1 I In 1993, jury convicted armed rob bery kidnaping bodily injury (which also resulted death), capital crime law. See Ga. Code Ann. §16–5–40(d)(4) (2006).2 During trial, presented describ ing stable, loving, essentially without incident. Seven witnesses offered testimony along following lines: came middle-class back ground; actions shocked dismayed relatives; death sentence, told, devastate family. 6–7. Counsel’s —————— Although state-court decision, resolved federal issue on exclusively federal-law grounds. jurisdiction. 28 C. §1257; see Padilla Kentucky, 559 ___ (reviewing decision raising question). Kentucky murder woman whom accomplice kidnaped Georgia. Under law, may “impose sentence offense kidnapping ground committed while offender engaged commis sion felon[y] .” Potts State, 261 716, 720, 410 S.E.2d 89, 93 (1991). So long “the [is] suffi ciently part same criminal transaction,” count “statutory aggravating circumstanc[e] injury.” Ibid., S.E.2d, 94. has raised categorical Eighth challenge constitutionality offense, which decline reach. And any jurisdictional constitutional respect Georgia’s ability execute occurring before us. 3 theory, seems, calculated portray adverse impact execution family loved ones. 20 Record 5181. strategy backfired. prosecu tor ultimately used purportedly stable advantaged upbringing against him State’s closing argument. With Sears, prosecutor told jury, “[w]e don’t deprived child inner city; person who[m] society turned early age. But, yet, person, privileged every way, rejected opportunity afforded him.” 7 (quoting transcript; internal quotation marks omitted). emerged evidentiary hearing, however, demon strates far “privileged way.” home life, filled material comfort, anything but tranquil: His parents had physically abu sive relationship, Exh. 26, 6 1676 (Affidavit Demetrius Sears), divorced when young, 22, id., 1654 Virginia Graves); sexual hands adolescent male cousin, 1681–1682; mother’s “favorite word referring her sons ‘little mother fuckers,’ ” 3, 265 Richard G. Dudley, Jr., MD); father “verbally abusive,” 37, 1746–1747 Carol Becci- Youngs),3 disciplined age-inappropriate particular instance recounted affidavit, art teacher stated “berate[d] [him] front of” school principal parent-teacher conference. 1746. event significant: “I’ll never forget way bullied him,” explained, “Mr. so verbally abusive made such scene, everyone room uncomfortable.” Ibid. “never been conference where parent severely criticized presence teachers meant it, Mr. did.” 1747. 4 military-style drills, 263–264; 19, 1622 Frank Sears); 1651; 28, 1694 Kenneth Burns, Sr.). struggled school, demonstrating substantial behavior problems very young example, repeated second grade, 6, 500– 501, referred local health center evalua age nine, 7, 503, 504, 508. By reached high “described learning disabled behaviorally handi capped.” A 1, 174–176 Tony L. Strickland, M. S., Ph. D.). Environmental factors aside, more significantly, produced relief process revealed “significant abnormalities.” 147. Two dif ferent psychological experts sub stantial deficits mental cognition reasoning—i.e., “problems planning, sequencing impulse control,” ibid.—as result serious head injuries suf fered abuse. 37–40 (Testimony Dr. Strickland); 95–96 Dudley). Regardless damage, scores least two standardized assessment tests placed percen tile categories function, “making among most impaired individuals popula terms suppress competing impulses conform only relevant stimuli.” 148; 37. “ability organize choices, assign them relative weight select deliber ate grossly impaired.” 149. From etiological standpoint, one explained “history replete multiple trauma, substance traumatic experiences type expected” 5 lead these impairments. 150; 44. Whatever concern dissent about sources relied upon by experts—informal personal accounts, post, 5–7 (opinion SCALIA, J.)—it does undermine well-credentialed expert’s assessment,4 based between 12 16 hours interviews, testing, observations, 32, suffers impairment. performed dis mally forensic administered functioning. On Stroop Word Interference Test, response inhibition, 36–37, 99.6% those cohort accounts age, education, background) better than did. Trail-Making B test, functioning, 37– 38, (and lowest) percentile. 38. Based results, first-hand extensive history, unequivocal: There “clear compelling evidence” “pro nounced pathology.”5 68. psychologist, director mild clinic Sports Concussion Institute Centinella Freeman Medical Center Los Angeles. 30. He associate profes sor psychiatry residence University California Angeles directs memory disorder cerebral palsy university’s department neuroscience. 30–31. State no objection being tendered neuropsychology. 31. colloquy court, explained: “THE COURT: taking history injuries, coupled results you’ve given, you can comfortably conclude given were conse quence injuries? WITNESS: Absolutely. And, moreover, Your Honor, patient lesion head, something observe.” 78. Further, fact brother dealer user, introduced life crime, 1683–1686, actually consistent theory portraying individual diminished judgment reasoning skills, desired follow footsteps older shut out life. Post, 6. “hearsay” necessarily value—or admissibility— purposes.6 5, n. 3. Finally, new there unsur prising, initial inadequate. Competent should able turn into positive—perhaps support deficiency theory. particular, grandiose self-conception magi cal thinking, ibid., features, another credentialed view,7 “profound personality LikeGeorgia’s “necessity exception” hearsay rules, §24–3–1(b) (2006), recognized reliable defendant’s defense excluded rote application rule. Green Georgia, 442 95, 97 (1979) (per curiam) (“Re gardless proffered comes within rule, facts case exclusion constituted violation Due Process Clause highly critical punishment trial”); Chambers Mississippi, 284, 302 (1973) (“In circumstances, rights directly affecting ascer tainment guilt are implicated, rule applied mechanistically defeat ends justice”). take view satisfy considerations Green, otherwise admissible psychiatrist, completed internship residency Northwestern Center, board certified American Board Psychiatry Neu disorder.” 104. This likable helped understand horren dous acts—especially upbringing. they conduct investigation, none known counsel. It II Unsurprisingly, concluded demonstrated deficient. U.S., 688 (explaining ineffectiveness claim representation “fell objective standard reasonableness”). view, cursory nature evidence—“limited day less, talking selected [Sears’] mother”—was constitu tionally inadequate.” 27B. What surprising, analysis regarding facially supra, 694. proper standard,8 correctly conceptualize how applies circumstances case. rology 35 years. 91–92. psychiatry. 93. 8 asked “there reasonable likelihood outcome different if done investigation.” 29B–30B; 694 (“The defendant must show probability that, unprofessional errors, proceeding different. sufficient confidence outcome”). evi dence phase, “[t]his cannot fairly compared little prediction made.” “it impossi ble know [a theory] [the jury].” “Because put supporting evidence,” reasoned, “[Sears] meet burden proving advanced.”9 errors First, curtailed probing because undue reliance assumed reasonableness miti gation determination investi gation, have, least, called question Cf. Wiggins Smith, 539 510, 522 (2003) “counsel’s fail ure uncover voluminous mitigating sentencing justified tactical ‘fulfill[ed] their obli 9 Channeling powers telepathy, JUSTICE SCALIA asserts decided “Sears’ cient difficult—so difficult make requisite showing.” 4. Such favorable reading convincing does. opinion; indeed, even real analysis, explaining “impossible effect” jury. 30B (emphasis added). thorough defen dant’s background’ Williams Taylor, 529 362, 396 (2000); alteration original)). point, reasonable, abstract, obviate need analyze failure arriving “reasonableness” was, stage inquiry, beside point: failures, haphazard choice not. chides concluding assumed, rather found, one. 2. our point reason ableness utilized—in case, impact—is tension unambiguous unreasonable unconstitutional. Williams: suggestion focus potentially strategy—in petitioner’s voluntary confession— “justified decision” “counsel fulfill obligation background.” 396. “tactical precursor coun sel developed “reasonable” case.10 10 Moreover, available likely introduced, settling “Whether omissions [in investigation] sufficiently prejudicial affected sentencing,” nevertheless demonstrate deficiency. Second, fundamentally, inquiry. limited cases “little presented, True, considered involving circumstances,11 “would barely altered profile presented” decisionmaker, 700. other described superficially phase. E.g., Williams, 398 (remorse cooperation police); Rompilla Beard, 545 374, 378 (2005) (residual doubt). recently Porter McCollum, 558 ___, (2009) (slip op., 3), attempted blame client’s bad acts drunken ness, discover heroic military service 11–12). Not find Porter, but— bound deference owed §2254(d)(1)— unreasonably ap plied Strickland’s prong analyzed Por ter’s 13). certainly held effort foreclose inves tigation defendant. To contrary, consistently Strick distinct second, result. 11See, e.g., 515–516 (2003); land 668, 700 (1984). 11 requires precisely fact-specific undertake below.12 instance, categorically truncated undertaken 397–398. “To [the] [of Strickland], consider totality evidence—both adduced habeas proceed ing—and reweig[h] aggrava tion.” 11) (internal quo tation omitted; third original). That applies—and will require “speculate” evidence— regardless much Indeed, exactly kind now undertakes, 4–8, do. all preju dice ineffective repre sentation context investigation. Whether implicitly apparent, notwithstanding SCALIA’s contrary. 3–4. record “largely silent” “what [evidence] shown [additional evidence] sought.” 28B. curious assertion 22 volumes hearing transcripts submissions record, spell findings discussed above. un dermines did, fact, do reweighing believes undertook; silent.” undermines simply discounted value testimony; finding, easily stated, instead, unpersuasive. III taken account newly uncovered “significant” impairments, received after 11); 397–398; court—and either SCALIA—to instance. certiorari motion leave forma pauperis granted. vacated, remanded opinion. ordered. CHIEF ALITO deny certiorari. J., dissenting THOMAS joins, dissenting. concludes, ante, 7–12, Superior Butts County, law applying ineffective-assistance-of claims my error today remands already done: details persuaded change mind sen tence brutal rape-murder. responsibly executed step investiga performance. here step: As acknowledges, Strickland: establish “a performance, different.” 24B–25B (citing 688, 694). “When trials,” means absent [counsel’s] sentencer con cluded balance warrant death.” 25B–26B. concludes standard. erroneously “curtailed theory” trial. Ante, 8. argument flawed levels. begin with, sume reasonable; was. said: “[A]lthough investigate thoroughly, develop it.” interviews roughly dozen potential witnesses, who, exception father, gave positive family, 2025, 2051–2052; 2129, 2291–2344, good solid upbringing; completely character; cooperated police; friends, 2124–2125; 19 4861–4862, 4916– 4917, 4954–4955; proach attorneys seven including mother, four guidance counselor. 6–7 transcript pages 2375 2451). ha beas declare “might abstract,” puts Rather, “put evidence.” Court’s “curtai[l]” conclusion “obviate analyze” pursuing difference. 9. merely asking, jury’s probably changed instead all; substituting rejected.1 just possible had.” added).2 “and fundamenta[l],” legal alleges, 10–11, really encased first. “lim ited evidence’ presented.” 30B). erred, determining “pre sent[ation of] whether” prejudiced. fair hold suffer ever provided evidence. com contends, 9, “tension” able. terribly misreads say (as assumes) using said making hard presents conceivable “tension.” owe provides basis inferring “engag[e] “did analysis.” 8, pared absolutely correct. like relies, readily overlooked deeper impression utterly unsupported (or absence theory) 12); 378, 393 (2005); 515, 537 369 (2000). requi site showing. Clearly “Although here, Petitioner argue prior appeal shows difficulty juror having reaching verdict others, her, impossible ju rors.” Since en route conclusion, reversing disagreement itself: mitiga caused impose makes attempt contradict conclu sion. Doing fact-intensive 22-volume measure persuasiveness theory—an purports disavow, 12, nonetheless tendentiously 3–6. reader think questionable account, re cites 3–7. solid. Some inadmissible unreliable Gissendaner 272 704, 714, 532 S.E. 2d 677, 688–689 Gulley 271 337, 347, 519 655, 664 (1999)—such uncorroborated second-hand “suffered cousin,” 3.3 Other competent jury— Demetrius, admitted 1682–1684, 1695, 1752, felon (for bank fraud, wire identity theft, co caine trafficking), 1687. No impressed character witness. incredible, psychia trist’s “substantial curiam), suggest purposes entirely misplaced. violated due exclude testi mony co-conspirator’s confession alone charged. Our holding depended “th[e] unique circumstances” case: “highly relevant” “substantial[ly]” statement penal interest close friend; corroborated “ample” obtain separate co-conspirator. 97. Here circumstances. reporting self-interested inadmissible. child,” seri ous consisted hitting roller-skating rink sometime elementary 76; 225, running end table 1651, getting hit golf club later 79; 225.4 (The last major anyway, since prosecution refute both extent mercy-worthiness introducing boast “beat s*** someone club, 2195.) Likewise incredible “introduced crime,” let [Sears] hang around” drug-dealing friends. 1685–1686. discredited psychiatric tes timony “[f]rom stand ‘history expected’ [mental] im pairments,” 4–5 150). noted, brain-damaging trauma nonexis tent. Dudley himself unsubstantiated himself, 2195, teenager “hatchet” above right eye. Of course, place collided table, leaving “lesion”—better scar—on 5–6, 78). corroborating event: medical records, 77, apparent scars, 245; and, tellingly, friends confirm surely memorable happened. less-than-trustworthy brother, see, 122, 133. then unfa vorable parts Dudley’s testimony: “narcis sis[t],” 135, “grandiose” 98–99; 246. affidavit portrays arrogant self-centered, 246, 247, notes termed “fantastical” boasting experience six “innumerable experiences,” 98– 99, 100; 246–247. thought probable so-called “magical thinking,” 84, plea leniency, seems me “profoun[d] disorder,” 104, commit heinous crimes future. recounts ut terly unlikely affect deserved recitation hilarious. “was ‘verbally abusive,’ resting nothing teacher’s recollection “severely criticized” him—“and it”!—at concerning son’s poor academic 1747; “disciplined drills,” 3–4, positively Von- Steubenesque dousing kid cold water refused get up run extra laps sports practices, 1622; “ ‘favorite word’ ”—actually three words—to refer scatological, 265). While takes pain describe elements down silliest, trouble crime—which assessing sentence. heard them. 268 759, 759–760, 493 180, 182 (1997). They kidnaped, raped, murdered Gloria Wilbur, 59-year old wife mother. carrying briefcase contain various instruments mayhem—brass knuckles, knives, handcuffs—and accomplice, Phillip Wil liams, surveying supermarket parking lot Sunday evening October 1990, looking car steal drive Ohio victim putting groceries trunk car, approached, punched brass knuck les, shoved drove pick Williams. handcuffed pulled seat drove. passed Tennessee, raped her. Later evening, crossed stop car. forced still handcuffed, woods side highway she begged throwing ground, stabbed neck. showed regret remorse crimes.5 anyone disagree “deprived-childhood-cum-brain-damage” “good-middle-class-kid-who-made-a mistake” differ ent verdict. respectfully dissent. corrections officers incarcerated awaiting sentencing, racked dozens disciplinary infractions, assaults inmates. ‘Predatory,’ ‘[i]ncorrigible,’ incapable reform him. 2951–2957; 4868.

Category: 0