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

defendanttrialwill
defendantwill

Related Cases

Keller v. Wolf, 239 Minn. 397, 58 N.W.2d 891
View Case »
In re Hall County Grand Jury Proceedings, 175 Ga.App. 349, 333 S.E.2d 389
View Case »
Messing v. FDI, Inc., 439 F.Supp. 776, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 96,217
View Case »
Ricotta v. State of Cal., 4 F.Supp.2d 961
View Case »
Jordache Enterprises, Inc. v. Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison, 18 Cal.4th 739, 958 P.2d 1062, 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 749, 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5893, 98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 8219
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389, 68 USLW 4263, 2000 Daily Journal D.A.R. 3949, 00 CJ C.A.R. 2064, 13 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 225

Facts

Terry Williams was convicted of robbery and capital murder in Virginia, with the jury recommending the death penalty based on evidence of his future dangerousness. During sentencing, his defense counsel presented minimal mitigating evidence, failing to investigate Williams' troubled childhood and mental health issues. After exhausting state remedies, Williams sought federal habeas relief, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel, which the federal trial judge initially supported, but the Fourth Circuit reversed.

Terry Williams was convicted of robbery and capital murder in Virginia, with the jury recommending the death penalty based on evidence of his future dangerousness. During sentencing, his defense counsel presented minimal mitigating evidence, failing to investigate Williams' troubled childhood and mental health issues.

Issue

Whether Terry Williams' constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel was violated and whether the Virginia Supreme Court's decision was contrary to or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law.

Whether Terry Williams' constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel was violated and whether the Virginia Supreme Court's decision was contrary to or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law.

Rule

To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show that counsel's performance was deficient and that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense, as outlined in Strickland v. Washington.

To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show that counsel's performance was deficient and that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense, as outlined in Strickland v. Washington.

Analysis

The Supreme Court found that the Virginia Supreme Court's decision was contrary to the established law under Strickland, as it failed to recognize the significant mitigating evidence that was not presented during sentencing. The Court emphasized that the trial counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that there was a reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different had the mitigating evidence been introduced.

The Supreme Court found that the Virginia Supreme Court's decision was contrary to the established law under Strickland, as it failed to recognize the significant mitigating evidence that was not presented during sentencing.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed the Fourth Circuit's decision and remanded the case, affirming that Williams was denied effective assistance of counsel.

The Supreme Court reversed the Fourth Circuit's decision and remanded the case, affirming that Williams was denied effective assistance of counsel.

Who won?

Terry Williams prevailed in the Supreme Court, as the Court recognized the violation of his right to effective assistance of counsel and reversed the lower court's ruling.

Terry Williams prevailed in the Supreme Court, as the Court recognized the violation of his right to effective assistance of counsel and reversed the lower court's ruling.

You must be