Yarborough, Warden, et al. v. Gentry
540 U.S. 1 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the doubly deferential standard of federal habeas review, a state court's rejection of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim is not an unreasonable application of the Sixth Amendment where defense counsel's closing argument reflects a plausible tactical decision, even if it omits some potentially helpful arguments or candidly acknowledges the client's shortcomings.
Facts:
- Lionel Gentry stabbed his girlfriend, Tanaysha Handy, during what Gentry claimed was a dispute with a drug dealer.
- Gentry consistently maintained that the stabbing was accidental.
- At trial, Handy testified that she recalled being stabbed but could not remember the specific details of the incident.
- The prosecution introduced Handy's preliminary hearing testimony, in which she stated Gentry had put his hand on her throat before stabbing her.
- A security guard, Albert Williams, testified to seeing Gentry swing an object into Handy’s side, but he gave inconsistent statements about the lighting conditions, describing them as 'pretty dark,' 'not that dark,' and 'lighted up.'
- Gentry testified in his own defense and falsely stated he had only one prior conviction, when he in fact had several.
Procedural Posture:
- Lionel Gentry was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon by a jury in California state court.
- Gentry, as appellant, appealed to the California Court of Appeal, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel; the court affirmed his conviction.
- The California Supreme Court denied Gentry's petition for review.
- Gentry filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court, which was denied.
- Gentry, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- The Ninth Circuit, with the State (Roe) as appellee, reversed the district court's decision and granted habeas relief.
- The State, as petitioner, was granted a writ of certiorari by 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 state court's decision to deny an ineffective assistance of counsel claim constitute an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law when defense counsel's closing argument focused on the jury's uncertainty and conceded the client's negative character traits, rather than highlighting all potentially exculpatory evidence?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. The state court's decision was not an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law because defense counsel's performance during the closing argument did not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness. Judicial review of a lawyer's performance is highly deferential, and this deference is doubled when reviewing a state court's decision through federal habeas corpus. Counsel's summation made several key tactical points: it highlighted the inconsistency in the eyewitness's testimony, argued the irrelevance of the victim's personal circumstances and the client's criminal history, and framed the case as a simple credibility contest over whether the stabbing was accidental. The decision to focus on a few key themes rather than a 'shotgun approach' is a valid strategic choice. Conceding the client's flaws—calling him a 'bad person, lousy drug addict, stinking thief, jail bird'—can be a reasonable tactic to build credibility with the jury and direct their focus to the legally relevant issues. The arguments counsel omitted were either ambiguous or could have backfired, so failing to raise them does not constitute a professional error of constitutional magnitude.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the high bar for defendants claiming ineffective assistance of counsel, particularly on federal habeas review. It establishes a 'doubly deferential' standard, requiring federal courts to defer not only to counsel's tactical decisions but also to the state court's initial ruling on the matter. The decision grants defense attorneys wide latitude in crafting closing arguments, protecting strategic choices—even unconventional or risky ones like admitting a client's flaws—from being second-guessed in hindsight. Consequently, this precedent makes it much more difficult for federal courts to grant habeas relief on Sixth Amendment grounds when a state court has already rejected the claim.
Unlock the full brief for Yarborough, Warden, et al. v. Gentry