Bobby v. Van Hook
558 U.S. 4, 2009 U.S. LEXIS 7976, 175 L. Ed. 2d 255 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The effectiveness of a criminal defense counsel's performance must be evaluated under the objective standard of reasonableness based on the prevailing professional norms at the time of the alleged deficiency, not by applying later, more detailed professional guidelines retroactively.
Facts:
- On February 18, 1985, Robert Van Hook went to a Cincinnati bar with the intent to find and rob a gay man.
- Van Hook met David Self, and the two went to Self's apartment.
- At the apartment, Van Hook attacked Self, strangling him into unconsciousness before killing him with a kitchen knife and mutilating his body.
- Van Hook then stole Self's valuables and attempted to wipe away his fingerprints before fleeing.
- Van Hook had a documented history of targeting and robbing gay men using a similar method.
- Van Hook experienced a traumatic childhood, which included witnessing domestic violence, being beaten himself, and having parents who were heavy drinkers.
- From a young age, Van Hook abused drugs and alcohol, often with his father, and continued this abuse into adulthood.
- Van Hook had a borderline personality disorder, had been discharged from the military due to his substance abuse, and had attempted suicide five times.
Procedural Posture:
- Robert Van Hook was tried before a three-judge panel in an Ohio trial court, which found him guilty of aggravated murder with a capital specification and sentenced him to death.
- The Ohio Court of Appeals and the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed his conviction and sentence on direct appeal.
- Van Hook’s petitions for state postconviction relief were denied by the Ohio courts.
- Van Hook filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, which was denied.
- On appeal, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the District Court's decision, initially granting relief based on an unconstitutional confession.
- The en banc Sixth Circuit vacated the panel decision, found the confession was proper, and remanded the case to the panel to consider other claims.
- The panel then granted habeas relief again, this time on the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel during the penalty phase.
- The en banc Sixth Circuit again vacated and remanded to the panel, which issued a third opinion granting relief solely on the basis that counsel's mitigation investigation was deficient when measured against 2003 ABA guidelines.
- The State of Ohio (represented by the warden, Bobby) petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a defense counsel's performance in a 1985 capital sentencing hearing violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel when the investigation into mitigating evidence is evaluated against the American Bar Association's detailed 2003 guidelines, rather than the professional norms prevailing in 1985?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. Counsel's performance did not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment right because it was not objectively unreasonable under the professional norms prevailing at the time. The Sixth Circuit erred by judging counsel's 1985 conduct against the detailed American Bar Association (ABA) guidelines published in 2003. Under Strickland v. Washington, professional standards are merely guides, and the relevant standard is that which prevailed when the representation occurred. Counsel's investigation was timely and reasonably thorough for its time; they presented significant mitigating evidence regarding Van Hook's traumatic upbringing, substance abuse, and mental health issues. The decision not to interview more distant relatives was a reasonable strategic choice, as their testimony would likely have been cumulative. Furthermore, Van Hook failed to show prejudice, as any additional mitigating details would not have outweighed the significant aggravating evidence that he intentionally murdered David Self during the course of a robbery.
Concurring - Justice Alito
No. While joining the Court's opinion, it is important to emphasize that ABA Guidelines should not be given a 'privileged position' in determining the constitutional standard for effective assistance of counsel. The ABA is a private organization whose views do not necessarily represent the entire American bar. The judiciary, not a private group, holds the responsibility for defining the obligations imposed by the Sixth Amendment in capital cases.
Analysis:
This decision significantly reinforces the standard established in Strickland v. Washington, cautioning lower courts against anachronistically applying modern, heightened professional standards to past legal representation. It clarifies that ABA guidelines are merely evidentiary 'guides' to prevailing norms, not a constitutional checklist for effective performance. The ruling strengthens the deference given to counsel's strategic decisions regarding the scope of mitigation investigations and makes it more difficult for habeas petitioners to succeed on ineffective assistance claims by limiting the standards against which counsel's past performance can be judged. It underscores that both deficient performance and prejudice must be proven under the standards of the time.
Unlock the full brief for Bobby v. Van Hook