Maryland v. Kulbicki
136 S. Ct. 2, 193 L. Ed. 2d 1, 2015 U.S. LEXIS 4693 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Sixth Amendment's standard for effective assistance of counsel does not require a defense attorney to foresee future changes in the law or scientific consensus; counsel's performance must be evaluated based on the prevailing professional norms at the time of the trial, not with the benefit of hindsight.
Facts:
- In 1993, James Kulbicki's mistress was shot in the head at pointblank range.
- The killing occurred the weekend before a scheduled court hearing regarding a paternity suit and unpaid child support involving Kulbicki and the victim.
- At Kulbicki's murder trial in 1995, FBI Agent Ernest Peele testified as an expert on Comparative Bullet Lead Analysis (CBLA).
- Agent Peele testified that the elemental composition of a bullet fragment from Kulbicki's truck matched a fragment from the victim's brain.
- Peele also testified that a bullet from Kulbicki’s gun was similar enough to the fragments that they likely originated from the same package.
- A 1991 report co-authored by Agent Peele noted some compositional overlap in lead from different bullet batches but still concluded that CBLA was a valid forensic tool.
Procedural Posture:
- In 1995, a jury in a Maryland state trial court convicted James Kulbicki of first-degree murder.
- Kulbicki later filed a petition for postconviction relief in state court.
- In 2006, Kulbicki amended his petition, claiming his trial counsel had been ineffective for failing to challenge the validity of the Comparative Bullet Lead Analysis (CBLA) evidence.
- The lower state courts denied Kulbicki's petition for relief.
- Kulbicki, as the appellant, appealed the denial to the Court of Appeals of Maryland (the state's highest court), with the State of Maryland as the appellee.
- The Court of Appeals of Maryland reversed the lower courts and vacated Kulbicki's conviction, holding that his counsel's performance was deficient.
- The State of Maryland, as petitioner, sought and was granted a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court.
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 failure to challenge a widely accepted forensic methodology, which was only discredited years after the trial, constitute deficient performance under the Sixth Amendment's ineffective assistance of counsel standard?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. A defense counsel's performance is not deficient under the Sixth Amendment for failing to challenge a scientific methodology that was widely accepted and uncontroversial at the time of trial. To evaluate counsel's performance, a court must make a 'contemporary assessment' based on the professional norms at the time of the conduct, avoiding the 'natural tendency to speculate' with the benefit of hindsight. At the time of Kulbicki's 1995 trial, CBLA was a valid and widely accepted forensic tool, and counsel was not deficient for focusing on other aspects of the defense rather than attempting to find and exploit a subtle methodological flaw in a then-standard practice. It is unreasonable to expect counsel from that era to have located an obscure 1991 report without modern search tools, identified a minor finding within it, and used it to challenge a technique that the report itself ultimately validated. This would require 'perfect advocacy,' which is far more than the 'reasonable competence' guaranteed by the Constitution.
Analysis:
This decision strongly reinforces the high bar for establishing the 'deficient performance' prong of the Strickland test for ineffective assistance of counsel. It serves as a significant check on lower courts using hindsight to second-guess an attorney's trial strategy, particularly in cases involving scientific evidence that has since been discredited. The ruling clarifies that the reasonableness of counsel's actions is frozen in time, measured against the standards and knowledge available during the representation. This protects attorneys from being held to a standard of clairvoyance regarding future scientific or legal developments, thereby preserving the distinction between reasonable competence and perfect advocacy.
