Legal Document

Cite as: 577 U. S. ____ (2015) 1 Per Curiam SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES MARYLAND, PETITIONER v. JAMES KULBICKI ON PETITION FOR WRIT CERTIORARI TO APPEALS MARYLAND No. 14–848. Decided October 5, 2015 PER CURIAM. A criminal defendant “shall enjoy the right . to have Assistance of Counsel for his defence.” Const., Amdt. 6. We held that this requires effective counsel in both state and federal prosecutions, even if is unable afford counsel. Gideon Wain- wright, 372 U.S. 335, 344 (1963). unconstitu- tionally ineffective performance deficient, meaning errors are “so serious” he no longer functions as “counsel,” prejudicial, deprive a fair trial. Strickland Wash- ington, 466 668, 687 (1984). Applying standard name only, Court Appeals Maryland James Kulbicki’s defense attorneys were unconstitution- ally ineffective. summarily reverse. In 1993, Kulbicki shot 22-year-old mistress head at pointblank range. The two had been ensnarled paternity suit, killing occurred weekend before scheduled hearing about unpaid child support. At trial, commencing 1995, Agent Ernest Peele FBI testified State’s expert on Comparative Bullet Lead Analysis, or CBLA. testimony sort CBLA experts provided decades, composition elements molten lead bullet fragment found truck matched removed from victim’s brain; similarity one would “ ‘expect’ ” ‘examining pieces same bullet.’ 440 Md. 33, 41, 99 A.3d 730, 735 (2014). He further 2 taken gun was not an “exac[t]” match fragments, but similar enough bullets likely came package. Id., 42–44, A. 3d, 735–736. After considering ballistics evidence, additional physical evidence Kul- bicki’s truck, witness testimony, jury convicted bicki first-degree murder. then filed petition postconviction relief, which lingered court until 2006 when added claim failing question legitimacy By then, 11 years after conviction, fallen out favor. Indeed, supplemented once more first time generally accepted by scientific community therefore inadmissi- ble. See Clemons State, 392 339, 371, 896 A.2d 1059, 1078 (2006). lost lower courts appealed Maryland. point, abandoned assistance with respect high vacated conviction ground alone. coun- sel, according court, should report coauthored 1991 “presaged flaws evidence.” Md., 40, 734. One many findings com- position some other packaged months later separate box. Rather than conduct “further research explain existence overlapping compositions,” authors “speculated” coincidence (or, case, likelihood separately originated source lead) caused overlap. 49, 739. opined lone finding report’s 3 doubt “that produced different sources unique chemical composition,” faulty assumption ultimately led reject 15 later. Ibid.; see Clemons, supra, 369– 370, A.2d, 1077. authors’ “failure fully explore variance,” concluded, “at odds method.” 50, 740. Appeals’ view, any good attorney spotted methodological flaw. counsel’s failure unearth report, identify its method,” use flaw cast during cross-examination Peele, “fell short prevail- ing professional norms.” 50–53, 740– 742. Concluding supposed deficiency set aside ordered new 56, 743–744. offered support conclusion constitutionally required predict demise Instead, indulged “natural tendency speculate whether trial strategy might successful.” Lockhart Fretwell, 506 364, (1993). To combat tendency, we “adopted rule contemporary assessment conduct.” Ibid. Had heeded rule, it “judge[d] reasonableness sel’s challenged viewed Strickland, 690. validity widely accepted, regularly admitted 2003. United States Higgs, 663 F.3d 726, 738 (CA4 2011). As acknowledged, itself did CBLA, concluding valid 4 useful forensic tool suspect victim. 51, n. 11, A.3d, 740, 11. perform deficiently dedicating their focus involve poking holes then-uncontroversial mode analysis. That especially case here, since there reason believe diligent search discov- ered supposedly crucial report. single citation sweeping state- ment “was available” 1995—a Government Printing Office Web page accessed Appeals, apparently conducting own Internet nearly decades 12, 741, 12; also Brief Opposition 14. indicates compila- tion studies included “dis- tributed various public libraries 1994.” 12. But ones? And era card catalogues, worldwide web, what efforts expend find pilation? they it, really combed through entire compilation, identi- fied (of many) reports, disregard recognized be method”? effec- tive brought attention whose investigative technique cases just like Kulbicki’s? Neither nor has answers. Given uncontroversial nature effect judgment below demand lawyers go “looking needle hay- stack,” “reason there.” Rompilla Beard, 545 374, 389 (2005). demanded something close “perfect advocacy”—far “reasonable 5 competence” guarantees. Yarborough Gentry, 540 1, 8 (2003) (per curiam). provide deficient perfor- mance failed uncover so-called against cross-examination. (We need not, so do decide error prejudiced Kulbicki.) writ certiorari granted, reversed. It ordered.

Classification Label: 0