Wiggins v. Smith
539 U.S. 510 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel requires attorneys in capital cases to conduct a reasonable investigation into a defendant's background for mitigating evidence. A strategic decision to forego a mitigation presentation is only reasonable if it is based on a thorough investigation, not a cursory review of limited records that contain clear indications of a troubled history.
Facts:
- 77-year-old Florence Lacs was discovered drowned in the bathtub of her ransacked apartment in Woodlawn, Maryland.
- Kevin Wiggins was indicted for the crime.
- As a child, Wiggins's alcoholic mother frequently left him and his siblings alone for days, forcing them to beg for food.
- Wiggins's mother abused him, including once forcing his hand against a hot stove burner, leading to his hospitalization.
- At age six, the State placed Wiggins in foster care, where he suffered severe physical and sexual abuse at the hands of multiple foster parents.
- Wiggins was repeatedly molested and raped by the father in his second foster home.
- As a teenager, Wiggins was allegedly gang-raped by the sons of another foster mother.
- After leaving foster care, Wiggins entered a Job Corps program where he was allegedly sexually abused by his supervisor.
Procedural Posture:
- Kevin Wiggins was found guilty of first-degree murder in Baltimore County Circuit Court, a state trial court.
- A jury sentenced Wiggins to death.
- The Maryland Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, affirmed the conviction and sentence on direct appeal.
- Wiggins filed a petition for postconviction relief in the Baltimore County Circuit Court, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel. The court denied the petition.
- The Maryland Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of postconviction relief.
- Wiggins filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, which granted him relief.
- The State appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which reversed the District Court's decision, holding that counsel's performance was not deficient.
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 conduct a thorough investigation into a defendant's background for potential mitigating evidence, relying only on a presentence investigation report and social services records, constitute ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice O’Connor
Yes. A defense counsel's failure to conduct a thorough investigation into a defendant's background for mitigating evidence violates the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of effective assistance of counsel. Counsel has a duty to make reasonable investigations or a reasonable decision that makes particular investigations unnecessary, and a strategic choice made after a less-than-complete investigation is reasonable only to the extent that professional judgments support the limitation. Here, counsel's investigation fell short of professional standards because they failed to expand their inquiry beyond a presentence report and social services records, which themselves contained red flags about Wiggins's severe childhood abuse and neglect. Any reasonably competent attorney would have realized that pursuing these leads was necessary to make an informed choice about sentencing strategy. Because the investigation was unreasonable, the subsequent strategic decision to not present mitigating evidence was not entitled to deference.
Dissenting - Justice Scalia
No. The defense counsel's investigation did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. The state court's factual finding that counsel was aware of Wiggins's background is entitled to deference and was not rebutted by clear and convincing evidence. One of Wiggins's attorneys testified under oath that he knew about the client's troubled childhood, including reports of sexual abuse and physical abuse. Given this awareness, counsel made a reasonable, strategic decision to focus on arguing that Wiggins was not the principal in the murder, rather than presenting mitigating evidence that could have been inconsistent with that defense. The Court improperly disbelieves sworn testimony and fails to give the required deference to the state court's reasonable application of Strickland.
Analysis:
This case significantly refines the performance prong of the Strickland test for ineffective assistance of counsel. It establishes that a 'strategic decision' to limit investigation is not a shield against an ineffectiveness claim if the investigation itself was unreasonable. The Court clarified that counsel's duty to investigate is not satisfied by a cursory review of available documents, especially when those documents contain clear evidence of a deeply troubled background. Wiggins v. Smith makes it clear that defense attorneys, particularly in capital cases, must diligently pursue all reasonable leads for mitigating evidence before making a strategic choice about what to present at sentencing.
Unlock the full brief for Wiggins v. Smith