Lawyer's capital concession can be raised by death row inmate, SCOTUS says in procedural case
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on behalf of a death row inmate whose trial counsel said in his closing remarks that he could not “quarrel with” a death sentence.
The court ruled for Robert Mitchell Jennings in a 6-3 opinion (PDF) that considered whether Jennings’ ineffective assistance claim was barred by a procedural misstep. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the majority opinion finding no bar to Jennings’ argument.
Scalia was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
Jennings was convicted of shooting and killing a Houston police officer in July 1988 as the officer was in the process of arresting the owner of an adult bookstore. Jennings robbed the store and told his getaway driver what he had done, prompting the driver to shoot Jennings. Jennings fled and was arrested at the hospital, according to previous coverage of the case.
Jennings had sought habeas relief based on three theories of ineffective assistance: The trial lawyer did not present evidence of his disadvantaged background, did not present evidence of Jennings’ low intelligence and brain damage, and remarked that he couldn’t “quarrel with” a death sentence while nonetheless asking the jurors for mercy.
Jennings prevailed on the first two theories before a federal judge, and when the state appealed, Jennings also raised the third claim about his lawyer’s summation comment. At issue was whether Jennings was required to file a notice of cross-appeal and seek a certificate of appealability to pursue the third ground.
Scalia said the third theory would not expand Jennings’ rights under the trial court judgment granting habeas relief—release unless the state grants a new sentencing hearing or a sentence commutation. Nor would it diminish the state’s rights, Scalia said. As a result, Jennings could pursue the argument, Scalia concluded.
Hat tip to SCOTUSblog.
