Legal Document

Cite as: 558 U. S. ____ (2009) 1 Per Curiam SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES DAVID BOBBY, WARDEN v. ROBERT J. VAN HOOK ON PETITION FOR WRIT CERTIORARI TO APPEALS SIXTH CIRCUIT No. 09–144. Decided November 9, 2009 PER CURIAM. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit granted habeas relief to Robert Van Hook on ground that he did not receive effective assistance counsel during sentencing phase his capital trial. Because we think it clear Hook’s attorneys met constitutional minimum competence under correct standard, grant petition and reverse. I On February 18, 1985, went a Cincinnati bar catered homosexual men, hoping find some one rob. He approached David Self, after two spent several hours drinking together they left Self’s apartment. There “lured Self into vulnerable position” attacked him, first strangling him until was unconscious, then killing with kitchen knife mutilating body. State Hook, 39 Ohio St. 3d 256, 256–257, 530 N.E.2d 883, 884 (1988). Before fleeing valuables, attempted cover tracks, stuffing other items body smearing fingerprints had behind. Six weeks later, police found in Florida, where confessed. indicted aggravated murder, specification, robbery. waived right jury trial, three-judge panel guilty both charges specifica tion. At hearing, defense called eight mitigation witnesses, himself gave an 2 BOBBY unsworn statement. After weighing aggravating mitigating circumstances, trial court imposed death penalty. courts affirmed direct appeal, id., at 265, N.E. 2d, 892; C–85–0565, 1987 WL 11202 (Ohio App., May 13, 1987) (per curiam), denied certiorari, Ohio, 489 U.S. 1100 (1989). also sought state post conviction relief, which denied. C–910505, 1992 308350 Oct. 21, 1992) appeal denied, 66 1440, 608 1085, rehearing 1470, 611 328 (1993); 70 1216, 639 1199 (1994). filed this federal 1995. District all 17 claims. Anderson, C–1–94–269 (SD Aug. 7, 2003), App. Pet. Cert. 123a, 163a. A reversed, concluding confes sion unconstitutionally obtained Edwards Arizona, 451 477 (1981). See 444 F.3d 830, 832 (2006). en banc vacated ruling, holding confession proper, remanded case consider 488 411, 428 (2007). petitioned writ certio rari, Hudson, 552 1023 remand, again, but different grounds, were ineffective penalty because adequately investigate present evi dence, neglected secure independent mental-health expert, requested relied presentence investi gation report without objecting damaging evidence contained. 535 458, 461 (2008). again 3 panel’s opinion, rather than hearing second time revise its opinion. 560 523, 524 (2009). In third panel—relying guidelines published by American Bar Association (ABA) 2003—granted sole lawyers performed deficiently investigating presenting evidence. 525. certiorari. We II before April 24, 1996, provisions Antiterrorism Effective Death Penalty Act 1996 do apply. Lindh Murphy, 521 320, 327 (1997). Even Act’s added layer deference state-court judg ments, cannot agree is entitled relief. Amendment entitles criminal defendants “ ‘effective counsel’ ”—that is, representa tion does fall “below objective standard reasonableness” light “prevailing professional norms.” Strickland Washington, 466 668, 686 (1984) (quoting McMann Richardson, 397 759, 771, n. 14 (1970)). That necessarily general one. “No particular set detailed rules counsel’s conduct can satisfactorily take account variety circumstances faced or range legitimate decisions regarding how best represent defendant.” S., 688–689. Restatements standards, have recognized, be useful as “guides” what reasonableness entails, only extent describe norms prevail ing when representation took place. Id., 688. ignored limiting principle, relying 4 ABA announced 18 years F. 3d, 526–528 Guidelines Appointment Performance De fense Counsel Cases 10.7, comment., pp. 81–83 (rev. ed. 2003)). standards effect 1985 described duty merits terms: “It lawyer prompt investiga explore avenues leading facts relevant event conviction.” Stan dards Criminal Justice 4–4.1, p. 4–53 (2d 1980). accompanying two-page commentary noted de “a substantial important role perform raising factors,” “[i]nformation concerning defendant’s background, education, employment record, mental emotional stability, family relationships, like, will rele vant, surrounding commission offense itself.” 4–55. Quite are ABA’s 131-page “Guidelines” counsel, 2003, relied. Those directives expanded been (in 1980 Standards) broad outline duties cases pre scriptions legal defendants. They discuss exhaustive detail, specifying should look for, look, begin. 80–85. include, example, requirement investigation every pe riod life from “the moment concep tion,” 81, contact “virtually . who knew [the defendant] family” obtain records “concerning client, parents, grandparents, siblings, children,” 83. 5 Judging 1980’s basis these 2003 Guidelines—without even pausing whether reflected prevailing practice trial—was error. To make matters worse, (following precedent) treated merely reasonably diligent would do, inexorable commands ‘must fully comply.’ ” 526 Dickerson Bagley, 453 690, 693 (CA6 2006)). stressed, however, “American like” “only guides” means, definition. since regarded them such.1 Wig gins Smith, 539 510, (2003). What said requirements fortiori true private organizations: “[W]hile States free impose whatever specific see fit ensure well represented, held Federal Constitution imposes re quirement: objectively reasonable choices.” Roe Flores-Ortega, 528 470, 479 (2000). B insists Circuit’s missteps made no difference time. —————— narrow grounds our opinion ac cepting legitimacy less categorical use evaluate post-2003 representation. For Guide lines must reflect “[p]revailing practice,” Strickland, 688, “standard Wiggins (2003), so “interfere constitutionally protected independence restrict wide latitude making tactical decisions,” supra, 689. express views meet criteria. 6 wrong. Like Appeals, contends began their too late, waiting guilty—only days hearing—to dig background. 528. But record shows started much sooner. Between indictment three months contacted lay wit nesses early often: spoke nine times mother (beginning within week indictment), once parents together, twice aunt lived often cared child, friend whom visited immediately crime. 380a–383a, 384a–387a. As expert nesses, touch more month reached verdict. 382a, 386a. Moreover, reviewing military tory, representative Veterans Ad ministration seven medical records. 381a, And looked enlisting specialist still five away. Circuit, short, simply incorrect saying law yers waited “last minute.” Cf. Williams Taylor, 529 362, 395 (2000) (counsel “until trial” prepare phase). Nor scope unreason able.2 brief Court, alludes failure reli ance (and object harmful in) report—grounds previ ously abandoned final 7 little information about traumatic childhood experience,” 528, gross distor learned, instance, (whose “heavy drinkers”) drink toddler, “barhopping” father age drank used drugs regularly 11 forward, continued abusing alcohol adulthood. 310a–312a, 323a– 326a, 328a–330a, 373a. heard grew up ‘combat zone’ ”: watched beat weekly, saw hold her gun- knife-point, “observed” episodes “sexual violence” while sleeping parents’ bedroom, beaten least once. 321a, 338a–339a, 371a. It learned “fantasies war” age, deeply upset drug abuse forced out military, tempted suicide (including murder), 351a–353a, 372a. although ex perts agreed suffer “mental disease defect,” borderline personality disorder consumption day crime impaired “his abil ity refrain [crime],” 303a, “explo[sion]” “senseless bizarre brutality” may resulted termed “homosexual panic,” 376a. Despite present, fault failing more. discover, argument goes, “reason suspect worse details existed,” suspicion 2–3. now concedes, neither “basis issuing writ,” Brief Opposition 5; accordingly address them. 8 prompted interview members—his stepsister, uncles, aunts—as psychiatrist mother, “could helped narrate story experiences.” there comes point distant relatives expected cumulative, search distractive duties. Standards categories evidence, 4–55, did. given unearthed those closest upbringing experts reviewed unreasonable identify living member therapist parents. This failed act potentially powerful stared face, cf. Wiggins, 525, apparent documents any attorney obtained, Rompilla Beard, 545 374, 389– 393 (2005). instead case, like itself, “decision seek more” miti gating background “than already hand” fell “well profes sionally judgments.” 699.3 addition over looked, alleges provide witnesses “complete [his] complete psycho-social history.” 4. offers support assertion. further claims service prior hospitalizations, review former, 380a, (from written reports) says gleaned latter, 373a–377a. 9 more, if deeper, suffered preju dice result. 694. rejected found, affi davits submitted interviewed testimony nothing value. 308350, *2. Only arguably new, information: One uncles temporarily committed psy chiatric hospital, stepsister mentioned hit frequently tried kill mother. 227a, 232a. heard—from herself—that she “under psychiatric care” 340a. aware violent nature, 305a (noting “suffered significant degree neglect abuse” throughout “chaotic” childhood). Neither nor has shown why minor additional hear difference. side scales, moreover, dence circumstance found: murder alone course Rev. Code Ann. §2929.04(A)(7) (Lexis 2006). clear, never subsequently perpetrator “[h]is intention beginning end rob [Self] evening’s activities.” 295a; 276a–278a, 294a. arrive inten whim: previously pursued same strategy—of luring men secluded settings them—many teenage years, 10 employed arrest. 279a, 295a, 374a. Although apparently deviated original plan underway—going beyond steal goods disfiguring dead body—that hardly cause. focused number factors stead weight, 530; §2929.04(B), short shrift, overstate might had. * certiorari motion leave proceed forma pauperis granted. judgment proceedings consistent ordered. ALITO, J., concurring JUSTICE concurring. join Court’s per curiam emphasize my understanding way suggests Association’s Ap pointment Defense 2003) (2003 Guidelines) special relevance determining attorney’s performance meets required Amendment. venerable organiza history bar, all, group limited membership. association’s members, mention members advisory committee formulated Guidelines, whole. responsibility determine nature work order obligations Constitution, reason privi leged position determination.

Classification Label: 1