Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendanttrialwrit of certiorari
defendanttrialwrit of certiorari

Related Cases

Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454, 101 S.Ct. 1866, 68 L.Ed.2d 359
View Case »
Mauzy v. Edward Kraemer & Sons, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2004 WL 611127
View Case »
De La Jara v. U.S., 510 U.S. 1169, 114 S.Ct. 1202 (Mem), 127 L.Ed.2d 550, 62 USLW 3574
View Case »
Trobaugh v. Sondag, 668 N.W.2d 577
View Case »
Thomas v. Powell, 534 U.S. 951, 122 S.Ct. 347 (Mem), 151 L.Ed.2d 262, 70 USLW 3092, 70 USLW 3259, 70 USLW 3267
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Sears v. Upton, 561 U.S. 945, 130 S.Ct. 3259, 177 L.Ed.2d 1025, 79 USLW 3002, 10 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8482, 2010 Daily Journal D.A.R. 10,093, 22 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 719

Facts

Demarcus A. Sears was convicted in 1993 of armed robbery and kidnapping with bodily injury, which resulted in death. During the penalty phase, his counsel presented evidence portraying his childhood as stable and loving, but this strategy backfired when the prosecution used it against him. Evidence later revealed that Sears had a troubled upbringing, including physical and sexual abuse, and significant cognitive impairments due to brain damage and substance abuse, which were not presented during his trial.

In 1993, a Georgia jury convicted Sears of armed robbery and kidnaping with bodily injury (which also resulted in death), a capital crime under state law.

Issue

Did the state postconviction court apply the correct prejudice inquiry in determining whether counsel's inadequate mitigation investigation prejudiced Sears?

Did the state postconviction court apply the correct prejudice inquiry in determining whether counsel's inadequate mitigation investigation prejudiced Sears?

Rule

Under Strickland v. Washington, a defendant must show that counsel's performance was deficient and that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.

Under Strickland v. Washington, a defendant must show that counsel's performance was deficient and that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.

Analysis

The Supreme Court found that the state postconviction court failed to conduct a proper prejudice inquiry by relying on the reasonableness of the mitigation theory presented at trial. The court should have considered the totality of the available mitigation evidence, including the significant cognitive impairments and troubled background of Sears, to assess whether there was a reasonable probability that a different outcome would have occurred.

The Supreme Court found that the state postconviction court failed to conduct a proper prejudice inquiry by relying on the reasonableness of the mitigation theory presented at trial.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court granted the petition for writ of certiorari, vacated the judgment of the state postconviction court, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

The Supreme Court granted the petition for writ of certiorari, vacated the judgment of the state postconviction court, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

Who won?

Demarcus A. Sears prevailed as the Supreme Court granted his petition for certiorari, finding that the state court failed to apply the correct legal standard regarding prejudice.

Demarcus A. Sears prevailed as the Supreme Court granted his petition for certiorari, finding that the state court failed to apply the correct legal standard regarding prejudice.

You must be