Home › Case briefs › Criminal Procedure

Kimmelman v. Morrison

Supreme Court of the United States · 1986 · Criminal Procedure

Criminal ProcedureIneffective Assistance of CounselFederal Habeas CorpusFourth AmendmentSixth Amendmenthabeas corpusineffective assistanceStrickland

Facts

Morrison's trial counsel failed to conduct any pretrial discovery and therefore did not learn until trial that police had entered Morrison's apartment and seized a bedsheet that the State intended to introduce. Because New Jersey required suppression motions to be filed within 30 days of indictment, the trial court refused to entertain counsel's midtrial suppression motion as untimely, although the judge stated counsel had raised a valid basis for suppression if timely made. The State introduced the sheet and expert testimony linking semen and hair evidence on it to Morrison and the victim. On federal habeas, Morrison claimed counsel was ineffective because his failure to conduct discovery caused the loss of a suppression motion and the admission of damaging evidence.

Issue

Does Stone v. Powell's restriction on federal habeas review of Fourth Amendment claims extend to a Sixth Amendment ineffective-assistance claim when the principal attorney error is failure to file a timely motion to suppress evidence allegedly obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment? If not, did Morrison's allegations state a cognizable ineffective-assistance claim requiring further proceedings under Strickland?

Rule

Stone v. Powell does not bar federal habeas review of a distinct Sixth Amendment ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, even when the principal attorney error is failure to litigate a Fourth Amendment suppression issue competently. In such a case, the defendant must satisfy Strickland by showing objectively unreasonable performance and prejudice; where the ineffectiveness allegation is counsel's failure to litigate a Fourth Amendment claim, the defendant must also show that the Fourth Amendment claim is meritorious and that there is a reasonable probability the verdict would have been different absent the excludable evidence.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Ohio, Devin Clarke was convicted of burglary after police introduced tools seized from his garage. On federal habeas, Devin alleges his trial lawyer never reviewed discovery, missed the deadline for a suppression motion, and thereby rendered ineffective assistance. Ohio argues the petition is barred because the claim really attacks an unlawful search.

How should the federal court rule on the State's argument?

Explanation. The majority held that Stone v. Powell does not extend to a distinct Sixth Amendment ineffective-assistance claim merely because the attorney error involved failure to litigate a Fourth Amendment issue competently. The claims protect different constitutional interests and require different proof. Devin still must satisfy Strickland and show the suppression issue is meritorious, but Stone does not bar the Sixth Amendment claim itself.