Legal Document

Cite as: 571 U. S. ____ (2014) 1 Per Curiam SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ANTHONY RAY HINTON v. ALABAMA ON PETITION FOR WRIT CERTIORARI TO CRIMINAL APPEALS No. 13–6440 Decided February 24, 2014 PER CURIAM. In Strickland Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), we held that a criminal defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel is violated if his trial attorney’s performance falls below an objective standard of reasonableness and there reasonable probability the result would have been different absent deficient act or omission. Id., at 687–688, 694. Anthony Ray Hinton, inmate on Alabama’s death row, asks us decide whether Alabama courts correctly applied case. We conclude they did not hold Hin- ton’s attorney rendered constitutionally performance. vacate lower court’s judgment remand case for reconsideration attor- ney’s was prejudicial. I A 1985, restaurant manager in Birming- ham shot course after-hours rob- bery restaurant. second murdered during very similar robbery another July. Then, later July, named Smotherman survived robbery-shooting. During each crime, robber fired two .38 caliber bullets; all six bullets were recovered by police investigators. described assailant police, when showed him photographic array, he picked out Hinton’s picture. 2 The arrested Hinton from house revolver belonging mother, who shared with him. After analyzing three crimes test-firing revolver, exam- iners State’s Department Forensic Sciences concluded had same gun: found house. ton charged counts capital murder killings first robberies. He connection third (that is, robbery). At trial, strategy link through eyewitness testimony forensic evidence about then persuade jury that, light similar- ity analysis must also commit- ted murders. identified as man robbed tried kill him, other witnesses provided tended robbery. main- tained innocent misidentified support defense, presented testified alibi work warehouse time See 548 So. 2d 562, 568–569 (Ala. 1989) (summarizing side case). only physical evidence. Besides those items, no evi- dence crime scenes could be used identify perpetrator (such fingerprints) incriminat- ing home car. turned its expert con- vince indeed revolver. According Supreme Court, “the linking 3 murders comparisons revolver.” 2008 WL 4603723, *2 (Oct. 17, 2008). category issue this “firearms toolmark” Toolmark examiners attempt determine bullet scene particular gun comparing microscopic markings (toolmarks) known gun. theory minor differences even be- tween guns model will leave discernible traces are unique enough examiner given weapon. generally National Research Council, Strengthening Science United States: Path Forward 150–155 (2009). Recognizing defense called effective rebuttal witnesses, filed motion funding hire witness own. response, judge granted $1,000 statement: “ ‘I don’t know what my limitations how much can grant, but grant up $500.00 [that charges, which together] far now I’m granting these cases this. So you need additional ex- perts go ahead file separate form I’ll see experts, am $500.00, statutory maximum it’s necessary beyond may check can, one’s granted.’ ” 2006 1125605, *59 Crim. App., Apr. 28, 2006) (Cobb, J., dissenting) (quoting Tr. 10). 4 take invita- tion request more funding. fact, $500 per ($1,000 total) statu- tory trial. An earlier version statute limited state reimbursement expenses one half cap fees, explains why believed entitled charges. Smelley State, 564 74, 88 App. 1990). But relevant amended provide: ‘Counsel shall reimbursed any reasonably incurred such approved advance court.’ Dubose 662 1156, 1177, n. 5 1993) Ala. Code §15–12–21(d) (1984)), aff ’d 1189 1995). That amendment went into effect June 13, 1984, Dubose, supra, 5, over year before arrested, so corrected judge’s mistaken belief limit accepted invitation funds. failed do because himself unaware law longer imposed specific instead allowed “any incurred.” evidentiary hearing postconviction petition, following conversa- occurred between attorney: “Q. You awful lot try find qualified case, didn’t you? “A. Yes, sir, did. Would characterize it everything knew do? think so. And come down unwilling- ness experts price able pay? your failure get let’s say hundred percent satisfied part some act, court approve sufficient funds? Well, putting little differently, yes, failure—it failure, inability under obtain purpose hiring experts.” Reporter’s Official 206– 207 (emphasis added). Operating pay than $1,000, looking witness. testi- mony, made extensive search well-regarded expert, person willing offer: Andrew Payne. “testified Payne exper- tise thought needed consider Payne’s effective.” *27. As told pretrial hearing: “I effort somebody useable. tell [about] couple lawyers town . ask anybody. One them him; reason contact wasn’t recommended lawyer. stuck he’s guy possibly produce.” *30 (internal quota- marks omitted). toolmarks barrel 6 corroded away impossible certainty par- ticular fied match another. contrast, maintained On cross-examination, prosecutor badly discredited admitted he’d firearms toolmark identification just twice preceding eight years in- volved shotgun rather handgun. conceded difficulty operating micro- scope laboratory asked help experts. ended cross-examination colloquy: Mr. Payne, problem vision? Why, yes. How many eyes have? One.” 1667. prosecutor’s closing argument highlighted fact expertise military ordnance, fire- arms identification, graduated 1933 (more century trial) degree civil engineering, whereas training experience field examination. prosecu- tor said: reject [Payne’s] option judges facts whose testimony, Yates’ Payne’s, give credence to, submit men them. There comparison. doesn’t 7 does day out, month recognized across expert.’ *64 1733–1734). convicted 10- to-2 vote sentenced death. recommendation sentence. B contended ‘ineffective seek addi- tional funds became obvious individual examine allotted incompetent unqualified. Indeed, additional, inexplicable express necessary.’ *28. To show prejudiced ineffec- tive produced new three, consultant John Dillon, worked Federal Bureau Investigation’s forensics labora- and, 1988 until retired 1994, served chief unit FBI’s head- quarters. examin- ers Dallas County Crime Laboratory several cases. All examined State hearing, pursu- ant ethics code trade organization, Associ- 8 ation Firearm Tool Mark Examiners, Yates, deter- mined Yates refused cooperate. C circuit denied petition ground allegedly poor tes- timony depart affirmatively matched either Court Criminal Appeals affirmed 3-to-2 vote. 1125605. agreed jury, strongly sup- ported inference innocent. *31. Then-Judge Cobb (who justice Court) dissented. her view, ineffective failing better preju- diced meaning Shaw remanded make finding stated “[i]t goes without saying knowledge available pert, lawyer unqualified witness.” *73. reversed remanded. 4603723. quoting length Judge Shaw’s dissent, stated, “We agree ‘the dispositive expert’ deny- 9 [postconviction] directly rule testifying place.’ *4 *70, *72 (Shaw, dissenting)). thus focused own qualifi- cations, expert—one hired learned requested funds— compelling Hinton. remand, deed testify place required “knowledge ination average layperson.” 5517591, *5 Dec. 19, 2008); Charles 350 730, 733 1977) (“An ‘expert witness’ enlighten street. witness, definition, opportunity means specialized art science juror witness”). appellate ruling applicable standard. 2013 598122 Feb. 15, 2013). review 4- to-3 vote, justices recused. writ certiorari. II This calls straightforward application our ineffective-assistance-of-counsel precedents, beginning 668. Amendment’s guarantee “[i]n prosecutions, accused enjoy Assistance Counsel defence” 10 entails defendants represented meets least minimal competence. 685–687. “Under Strickland, counsel’s representation ‘fell reasonableness.’ Then ‘there unprofessional errors, proceed- different.’ Padilla Kentucky, 559 356, 366 (2010) 688, 694). “The prong—constitutional deficiency—is neces- sarily linked practice expectations legal community: ‘The proper measure remains simply prevailing profes- sional norms.’ Padilla, 688). “In presenting ineffectiveness claim, inquiry assistance considering circum- stances.” 688. Under standard, unreasonable fail where based strategic choice capped $1,000. “Criminal arise requires consultation introduction evidence.” Harrington Richter, 562 ___, ___ (2011) (slip op., 16). recognized, core prosecution’s experts’ conclusion effectively rebutting re- quired competent side. good respect Nonetheless, 11 felt “stuck” unable cover fees. discussed above, wrong: court.” §15–12–21(d). expressly invited further necessary. Yet order replace inadequate mistakenly received constituted perfor- mance. “strategic choices after thorough investigation plausi- ble options virtually unchallengeable; less complete precisely extent judgments investigation. words, has duty investigations decision makes unnecessary.” U.S., 690–691. present yet cursory providing indigent revealed receive reim- bursement rea- sonably ignorance point fundamental combined perform basic research quin- tessential example Strickland. See, e.g., Williams Taylor, 529 362, 12 395 (2000) (finding “failed conduct uncov- ered records penalty mitigation purposes], calcu- lation incorrectly barred access records”); Kimmelman Morrison, 477 365, 385 (1986) discovery “was ‘strategy,’ mis- taken belie[f ] obliged initia- turn inculpatory defense”). wish clear consist who, though qualified, enough. selection paradig- matic type choic[e]” “after [the] facts,” “virtually unchallengeable.” 690. today launch federal examina- relative qualifications might hired. here inexcusable mistake law—the understand resources him—that caused employ deemed inadequate. Having established performance, “show pro- ceeding different. probabil- undermine confidence outcome.” “When defendant challenges conviction, question factfinder 13 doubt respecting guilt.” 695. held, contends brief opposition certiorari, use said hoped expert: *31 (“[E]ven assuming apparent lifted , appellant shown per- formance”). It true done it. believe reasona- instilled guilt lifted, lawyer’s experi- enced inculpate not, alone, demonstrate guilty. Prosecution course, sometimes takes. threat fair crim- inal trials posed potential fraud- ulent prosecution noting “[s]erious deficiencies trials. study exon- erating resulted overturning convictions invalid contributed 60% cases.” Melendez-Diaz Massachusetts, 557 305, 319 (2009) (citing Garrett & Neufeld, Invalid Testi- mony Wrongful Convictions, 95 Va. L. Rev. 1, 14 (2009)). minimized tains counter witnesses; maximized fails law. Because evaluated prejudice ques- applying prejudicial * certiorari proceed forma pauperis granted, vacated, proceedings incon- sistent opinion. ordered.

Classification Label: 1