Legal Document

477 U.S. 365 106 S.Ct. 2574 91 L.Ed.2d 305 Irwin I. KIMMELMAN, Attorney General of New Jersey, et al., Petitionersv.Neil MORRISON. No. 84-1661. Argued March 5, 1986. Decided June 26, Syllabus At respondent's bench trial in a Jersey court resulting his conviction rape, police officer testified that few hours after the rape she accompanied victim to apartment where had occurred; he was not there but another tenant let them into apartment; and seized sheet from bed. such point testimony, counsel sought suppress introduction any testimony about it on ground without search warrant violation Fourth Amendment, judge ruled counsel's suppression motion late under applicable Court Rule. The rejected attempt justify omission grounds heard seizure until day before, when began; State's obligation inform him its case, even though made no pretrial request for discovery, which would have revealed seizure; expected go because been told did wish proceed. Respondent retained new and, appeal, alleged ineffective assistance at error court's refusal entertain during trial. appellate claims affirmed conviction. Thereafter respondent unsuccessfully postconviction relief same grounds. He then obtained habeas corpus Federal District Court, held, inter alia, established ineffective-assistance claim. Appeals concluded Stone v. Powell, 428 465, 96 3037, 49 1067 (1976)—which held federal courts should withhold review State has provided an opportunity full fair litigation Amendment claim—should be extended bar consideration Sixth based failure competently litigate claims. Reviewing Court's determination test by intervening decision Strickland Washington, 466 668, 104 2052, 80 674 (1984)—which that, establish assistance, defendant must prove both incompetence prejudice—the determined "grossly ineffective," vacated remanded consider whether, standards set forth Strickland, prejudiced attorney's incompetence. Held: 1. restriction announced supra, does extend ineffective-assistance-of-counsel are founded primarily incompetent representation with respect issue. may grant appropriate cases, regardless nature underlying attorney error. Pp. 373-383. (a) Respondent's claim is fact directly controlled Stone, as petitioners assert. two distinct, requisite elements proof. 374-375. (b) Nor rationale purposes fully principally defense competently. remedy violations exclusionary rule personal constitutional right, instead predominately judicially created structural designed safeguard rights generally through deterrent effect; minimal utility context collateral proceedings. Here, direct protection fundamental right effective counsel, frequently only means accused can effectuate right. Moreover, merit contention allowed vindicate primary make timely exclusion illegally evidence often most probative information bearing defendant's guilt or innocence. conditioned upon actual 375-380. (c) Petitioners' prediction every fails state will litigated proceedings guise, result, many state-court judgments disturbed, incorrect ignores rigorous standard erects Although meritorious issue necessary success like respondent's, good alone earn prisoner relief. Only those who they denied gross their attorneys entitled writ retrial challenged evidence. 380-382. 2. satisfied prong err remanding case prejudice Strickland's standard. 383-391. While file constitute per se record clearly reveals failed motion, due strategy considerations, unaware search, intention introduce bedsheet evidence, conduct discovery. Such here not, required reasonable accord prevailing professional norms. 383-387. With test, petitioners' statement post-trial hearing bail pending appeal constituted finding if excluded, found guilty, subsidiary historical incompetence, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) presumption correctness sufficiently complete enable this apply facts remand redetermination proper. 387-391. 752 F.2d 918 (CA 3 1985), affirmed. BRENNAN, J., delivered opinion WHITE, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, STEVENS, O'CONNOR, JJ., joined. POWELL, filed concurring judgment, BURGER, C.J., REHNQUIST, joined, post, p. 391. Allan J. Nodes, Trenton, N.J., petitioners. William E. Staehle, Chatham, respondent. Justice BRENNAN Court. 1 question we address whether restrictions (1976), principal allegation manifestation inadequate allegedly Amendment. 2 * Respondent, Neil Morrison, convicted raping 15-year-old girl. presented consisted scientific victim, her mother, officers handled victim's complaint. employer, taken apartment, forced onto bed raped her. Upon returning home, girl related incident who, first summoning Morrison asking account events, phoned police. came home transported hospital, examined tested indicia sexual assault. 4 also called witness Detective Dolores Most, one investigated Most Morrison's building rape. one-room apartment. there, stated, 5 objected concerning warrant. Rules, however, require motions within 30 days indictment unless time enlarged cause. N.J.Ct.Rule 3:5-7. Because 30-day deadline long since expired, late. Defense explained began, client could known left receipt sheet. prosecutor responded beginning, never asked Had done so, observed, reports seizure. stated further month before sent copy laboratory report tests conducted stains hairs sheets. 6 Asked repeatedly why asserted against client, assertion stated: "I hate say it, I you were remiss. think available examination inquiry." Tr. 114. attempted justification also, reminding once handed down, complaint longer belongs requires order dismiss indictment. Id., 115. agreed "br[ought] very valid basis . brought made," refused "to middle trial." 110. 7 number expert witnesses sheet, stain underpants, blood hair samples This stained semen man type O blood, underwear similarly exhibited vaginal performed hospital demonstrated presence sperm, recovered morphologically similar head victim. aggressively cross-examined all witnesses. 8 four friends acquaintances himself different version facts. theory mother fabricated punish being delinquent girl's wages. According intended prosecution, ultimately impossible extricate themselves lies. admitted having intercourse claimed activity other women accounted seated herself implied secretions positive sperm probably recently engaged relations father baby. Counsel call boyfriend testify type, prosecution commented closing argument. 9 judge, rendering verdict, noted: "As cases nothing cut dry. There discrepancies it's presented." 86. After pointing out some more troublesome inconsistencies several witnesses, declared conclusion proved beyond doubt. 10 trial, dismissed appeal. On appeals summarily either Supreme subsequently petition discretionary review. Superior tried case. identical issues raised bound resolution 11 again raising erroneous admission allege fairly, barred (1976). 579 F.Supp. 796 (NJ 1984). find meritorious. 12 rendered applied constitutionally deficient (1984), relied Third Circuit precedent guidance, particularly United States Baynes, 687 659 (1982), Moore States, 432 730 (1970). Like these two-pronged inquiry competence prejudicial effect unprofessional errors. competence, used " 'customary skill knowledge normally prevails place.' F.Supp., 802 (quoting Moore, 736). Noting 'entails careful particular circumstances surrounding each case,' 665), concluded: 13 "[C]ounsel meaningful thus totally certain damaging might subject motion. seems acted misapprehension obligated turn over anything interested examining. Little else offered way excuse [Morrison's] lawyer face repeated criticism except rather remarkable noting up 'didn't want ahead case.' Based unmitigated negligence petitioner's failing combined likelihood made, petitioner deprived representation." 802-803. 14 measured harmless-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt prescribed ineffectiveness issued conditional ordering release retry him. 15 relevance claim, did. Relying language natures claims, (1985). decided reviewed test. F.2d, 922, 16 Petitioners, Superintendent Rahway Prison, petitioned certiorari. We granted petition, 474 815, 59, 88 47 (1985), now affirm. II 17 Petitioners urge veil lifted reveal what argue really is—an defaulted They fact, form, one, controls here. Alternatively, maintain legitimately considered distinct argue, emasculated sort Finally, violate principles comity federalism seriously interfere interest finality criminal convictions.1 18 do share perception identity between source advanced respondent, nonetheless 19 invoked trials, right; affords governmental intrusion one's affairs pertains citizens. gravamen complainant's legitimate expectation privacy violated illegal See, e.g., Katz 389 347, 507, 576 (1967). In prevail, complainant need item place Rawlings Kentucky, 448 98, 104, 100 2556, 2561, 65 633 (1980). 20 defendants; assures fairness, legitimacy, our adversary process. E.g., Gideon Wainwright, 372 335, 344, 83 792, 796, 799 (1963). essence errors so upset adversarial balance unfair verdict suspect. U.S., 686, S.Ct., 2064; Cronic, 648, 655-657, 2039, 2044-2046, 657 (1984). show fell below objective reasonableness, 688, 2064, exists probability errors, result proceeding different. 694, 2068. Where ineffectiveness, absent excludable demonstrate prejudice. Thus, while element proof separate identities reflect values. B 21 disagree reasoning 22 proper scope defendants' excluded court. determining crucial "is right." 486, 3048; see id., 495, n. 37, 3052, 37. expressed understanding calculated redress injury seizure," instead, explained, 'judicially created' 'designed effect.' Ibid. Calandra, 414 338, 348, 94 613, 620, 38 561 (1974)). 23 noted "[a]s remedial device, 'the application restricted areas objectives thought efficaciously served,' 486-487, 3048-3049 620), situations grand jury proceedings, (citing supra), impeachment testifies broadly own behalf, 488, 3049 Walder 347 62, 74 354, 98 L.Ed. 503 (1954)), rule's costs outweigh misconduct. Applying "pragmatic analysis," 3049, prisoners afforded invoke raise review, not. accepting outweighs enforced "additional contribution search-and-seizure review," 493, too small relation 492-495, 3051-3052. 24 clear "decision [was] concerned statute authority litigating generally." 37 (emphasis original). Rather, simply "reaffirm[ed] than emphasiz[ed] rule" See Rose Mitchell, 443 545, 560, 99 2993, 3002, 61 739 (1979) ("In Powell carefully limited reach involving rule, proceeding"); Jackson Virginia, 307, 323, 2781, 2791, 560 (declining re Winship, 397 358, 90 2068, 25 368 (1970), support convictions sufficient permit rational trier doubt). contrast merely avail seeks counsel. 26 Gideon, ("The charged crime deemed essential trials countries, ours"). Without itself little consequence, see, 653, 2043; Ash, 413 300, 307-308, 93 2568, 2572-2573, 619 (1973); Argersinger Hamlin, 407 25, 31-32, 92 2006, 2009-2010, 32 530 (1972); 343-345, 796-797; Johnson Zerbst, 304 458, 462-463, 58 1019, 1022-1023, 82 1461 (1938); Alabama, 287 45, 68-69, 53 55, 63-64, 77 158 (1932), secures rights. Maine Moulton, 159, 168-170, 477, 483-484, 481 (1985); Schaefer, Federalism Criminal Procedure, 70 Harv.L.Rev. 1, (1956) ("Of person has, represented far pervasive, affects ability assert have"). guarantee "cannot mere formal appointment," Avery 308 444, 446, 60 321, 322, 84 377 (1940). "An assisted attorney, appointed, plays role ensure fair." 685, 2063. words, Evitts Lucey, 469 387, 395-396, 105 830, 835-836, 821 654, 2044; Cuyler Sullivan, 446 1708, 1716, 64 333 (1980); McMann Richardson, 759, 771, 14, 1441, 1449, 763 (1970).2 27 restricting accused's representation. A layman ordinarily unable recognize evaluate performance, cf. 69, 64; consequently rarely know usually consults Indeed, realize begins Were hold defendants handling habeas, deny whose incompetently regard inadequately protect Evitts, supra. cannot say, able severely petitioner.3 Furthermore, free, analysis refuse reasons prudence comity4 burden contexts believes price exceed utility, Constitution constrains allocate fit assistance. mandates bear risk Murray Carrier, 478, 2639, 2646, (1986) (where "procedural default responsibility imputed State"); Cuyler, 1716 prevents conducting persons incarceration defend adequate legal assistance"); 396, 836 mandate addressed action State"). 29 reject suggestion evidence—evidence "typically reliable innocence defendant." 490, 3050. recognized 'premise system justice partisan advocacy best promote ultimate guilty innocent free,' 394, 835, quoting Herring York, 422 853, 862, 95 2550, 2555, 45 593 (1975), underlies gives meaning 655-656, 2044-2045, intimated alike. Consequently, decline solely attaches matters affecting guilt.5 suggest fail whenever objection affected outcome proceeding. altered manner C Stone's warn, stripped practical issues. predict guise disturbed. seem believe underlying, erected forecast incorrect. 31 representation, prejudice.6 2065. strong performance falls "wide range assistance," 689, 2065; bears proving unreasonable norms sound strategy. 688-689, 2064-2065. reasonableness evaluated perspective light circumstances, highly deferential. shows demonstrating "there different." 695, 2069 (Where challenges conviction, "a factfinder doubt respecting guilt"). And, existence vel non prejudice, "must totality jury." As obvious, standard, although insurmountable, demanding. More importantly, differs significantly straightforward evidence.7 D summary, argument obtains "State unconstitutionally deprives liberty." 343, 1715. "in custody Constitution," 2254(a), jurisdiction III 33 Strickland. component turn. A. 34 contend overcome acknowledging said single, serious Brief 33, 657, 20, 2046, 20),8 violation. "amply reflects crafted strategy" "[v]iewed entirety, investigation, preparation professionally reasonable." (footnotes citations omitted). agree view assessment performance. 35 "access 'ample meet prosecution' entitled." 2063 Adams ex rel. McCann, 317 269, 275, 276, 63 236, 240, 87 268 (1942)). "Counsel duty bring render testing process." Counsel's presumed, 2065, rebut circumstances. making competency determination, "should keep mind function, elaborated norms, process work case." 690, 2066. function properly investigation prosecution's various strategies, "counsel investigations makes unnecessary." 691, But, investigate assessed applying heavy measure deference judgments." strategic because, unapprised again, "strategy," mistaken beliefs obliged take initiative inculpatory preferences determine proceeded returned. 36 Viewing discovery forgo stage "heavy deference," ibid., unreasonable, is, contrary justifications betray startling ignorance law—or weak shift blame preparation. neither investigated, nor investigate, lack puts prosecution,' Adams, 240), reliability minimize seriousness asserting turned credibility testimony. urge, vigorous cross-examination, attempts discredit effort lift back realm acceptability. reviewing "determine identified acts omissions outside wide competent assistance." It assess overall throughout "identified omissions" Since "[t]here countless ways provide given case," "all easy court, examining unsuccessful, conclude act unreasonable." 39 deal total pre-trial implausible explanations. creditable enough, suggests better explanation apparent pervasive "make Under examine inadvisable, affect soundness reached level respects alleged. 40 flawed, use hindsight relative importance components 2065 ("A eliminate distorting effects hindsight, reconstruct conduct, time"). not—and, ask, be. vis-a-vis pertinent sheds therefore deficient. 41 suffered erred presided 2254(d). If presumed correct, dispositive issue—that [Morrison's attorney's] guilt." 2069. conclude, exists. 42 substantial poses threat community. N.J.Ct. Rule 2:9-4. hearing, public defender representing informed read transcript doing entirely sure Motion Bail Pending Appeal 7. did, committed present Specifically, contended refusing midtrial awareness 43 admit accurately characterized abuse-of-discretion suggested surprised waived filing requirement permitted mid-trial 5. noting: 44 "The matter resulted therefrom obviously important, important phases means. "Obviously, well police, medical examinations, defense, defendant. just phase whole Appellate Division cause likely reversal." 11. 46 attention "[t]he mixed questions law conclusions regarding findings binding extent 2254(d), 698, 2070, constitutes 2254(d)'s correctness. ibid. Further, construe judge's remark guilty. So construed accorded correctness, Section 2254(d)(1) provides merits factual issue, shall correct" "the dispute resolved hearing."9 places substantially hearing. excluded. By contrast, decide abused discretion succeed. 48 Not answer presently courts, it. aspect aspect. tantamount declaration admitted. If, saying answered affirmatively contradicting earlier comment. tipped balance. know. fairly "merits dispute," 2254(d)(1), statements deference.10 50 criticizes Appeals' argues urges so. 51 invitation. existing incomplete No evidentiary ever conceded illegality seizure, Oral Arg. 11-12, Officer Most's exceptions Amendment's prohibition warrantless searches. Even guilt. showing, express view, course judgment 52 Affirmed. whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST join, judgment. 54 corpus. That flows logically difficult "prejudice" cannot. But parties discussed involved further. Though appears course, employs unnecessarily broad broader ante, ---- - ----. write separately mistaken, my relationship 55 uncomplicated. contained matching underpants. introduced accompanying belated untimely. contends filed. argues, led damning excludible. 56 depends rests cognizable 57 rejects holding derives propositions, applies First, reasoned exist wrong defendant, deter enforcement personnel. 486-489, 3048-3050. Second, add value, entail significant federal-state convicting punishing 493-495, Ineffective-assistance stand footing. clear, explicitly tied fundamentally trial—a "just" "reliable." 685-686, 696, 2063-2064, 658, (1984) ("[T]he sake, receive trial"). windfall; contrary, reversal result. 685-687, 2063-2064. For reason, governing 697, 2070. leaves room indirectly bars 59 possible bedsheet, actually directly. teaches, ensures contest charges them. opportunity, based. follows judged according governed Stone.1 basic 687, 2064. egregious enough satisfy prong. addition, comments prejudicial. correctly finds arguments mistaken. disposes make, addressed. sole stems concededly arguably inadmissible Mapp Ohio, 367 643, 81 1684, 1081 (1961), progeny. assumed inadmissible, "reasonable probability" satisfied. Cf. assumption justified. emphasized unfairness. recognizes envisions playing critical produce results." 2064 benchmark judging undermined functioning produced result"). Accordingly, cautioned mechanically: 62 "A considerations outlined. adjudicating mechanical rules. guide decision, focus fairness challenged. despite reliability, unreliable breakdown counts added). strongly suffice question, sum, harm unfair. (prejudice "requires [a] showing deprive reliable").2 indicate, lead unjust verdict. deterrence Leon, 468 897, 906, 3405, 3411-3412, 677 (1984); 486-488, 3048-3049; (1974). wholly renders verdicts less just, "deflects truthfinding frees guilty." 540, 3073 (WHITE, dissenting) (noting consequence" unimpeachable kept truth-finding impaired aborted"). denial adjudication guilt, absence windfall.3 affected, amount Common sense reinforces conclusion. last Term, today, 379-380, '[t]he premise sides free.' (1985) added), (1975). premise. shake loose moorings protects windfall. example, questioned. harmed helped well-informed compels us "injury" establishes 66 nevertheless vote reverse Appeals, certiorari encompass application.4 rhetoric mistakenly asked. 380 ("[W]e Courts litigants deceived pronouncements. Notwithstanding language, general applicability parties, ---, limits equally enforceable Ante, 382-383. encompasses remains open 67 govern concur leave day. procedurally lawyer's defaulted. disagree. confined extends predicated "an litigation" petitioner. 494, general, comparable, rested prudential, jurisdictional, 3052 ("Our mean lacks [a Amendment] [exclusionary] limited"). observed guiding hand step him." "If crime, incapable, generally, bad. unfamiliar rules Left aid put charge, irrelevant otherwise inadmissible. adequately prepare perfect one." refer alleges "actual" "presumed," prevented assisting proceeding, 659, 2047, 692, 2067, burdened conflict interest. Ibid.; 345-350, 1716-1719, reason "sandbag"—that consciously poorly clients' hope gaining favorable virtually inconceivable deliberately invite win client. little, anything, gain everything lose remembered potentially outcome-determinative meritorious, possibly decisive remote chance deliberate dereliction chooses loses obtain harmless-error Chapman California, 386 18, 824, 705 (1967), defaulting, shifts convicted. Comment, Effective Assistance Counsel: Fair Trial Guarantee, U.Chi.L.Rev. 1380, 1428, 223 (1983). Smith Murray, 527, 535, 2661, ----, 434 (1986); (1986). Subsections (2)-(8) determinations comment absolutely inquiry; Wainwright Sykes, 433 72, 97 2497, 594 (1977), merit. gist thereby forfeited rely together distinct. kinds extreme defense. 660-661, 2047-2048 (discussing (1932)). altogether, testing. Prejudice 23, 8, 828, (1967) (recognizing harmless error). Amsterdam, Search, Seizure, 2255: 112 U.Pa.L.Rev. 378, (1964) ("Granted criminals free constables blundering, pursuance policy liberation confines necessity inflicts gratuitous interest"), quoted 487, 24, 24. ask (1) "[w]hether corpus" trial; (2) Sykes preserved (3) gave weight supposed judge. Pet. Cert. i.

Classification Label: 0