Home › Case briefs › Criminal Procedure

Rompilla v. Beard

Supreme Court of the United States · 2005 · Criminal Procedure

Criminal ProcedureIneffective Assistance of CounselCapital SentencingMitigation InvestigationSixth AmendmentStricklandcapital sentencingmitigating evidence

Facts

At the penalty phase of Rompilla's capital trial, the Commonwealth sought to prove aggravation in part by relying on his prior rape and assault conviction and planned to introduce the prior victim's testimony. Defense counsel interviewed Rompilla, some family members, and reviewed reports from three mental health experts, but none of those sources yielded significant mitigation evidence. Despite knowing the prosecution would use the prior conviction and transcript, counsel did not examine the readily available court file for that conviction until the eve of sentencing, and apparently did not review the rest of the file at all. Postconviction counsel later showed that the file contained prison records and leads pointing to a severely abusive childhood, alcoholism, mental impairment, and possible organic brain damage that had not been presented in mitigation.

Issue

Whether defense counsel performed deficiently under the Sixth Amendment by failing to make reasonable efforts to obtain and review the readily available file of a prior conviction that counsel knew the prosecution would probably use as aggravating evidence at the capital sentencing phase, and whether that failure prejudiced the defendant.

Rule

Even when a capital defendant and his family suggest that no mitigating evidence is available, defense counsel must make reasonable efforts to obtain and review material counsel knows the prosecution will probably rely on as aggravating evidence at sentencing. Under Strickland, counsel's performance is deficient when, in the circumstances, counsel unreasonably fails to examine a readily available prior-conviction file that the prosecution intends to use substantively in aggravation, and prejudice exists when the omitted investigation would likely have uncovered substantial mitigating evidence sufficient to undermine confidence in the sentencing outcome.

🔒

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 a capital sentencing in Columbus, Ohio, the prosecutor told defense counsel weeks in advance that she would prove a violent-felony aggravator by reading testimony from the victim in Darius Cole's prior armed robbery case. Counsel interviewed Cole, his mother, and two psychologists, all of whom said there was little helpful mitigation, but counsel never obtained the publicly available prior-case file from the same courthouse.

Under the governing Sixth Amendment standard, was counsel's performance most likely deficient?

Explanation. Deficiency is likely. The controlling rule is that even when the defendant and family suggest no mitigation exists, counsel must make reasonable efforts to obtain and review material counsel knows the prosecution will probably use as aggravation at a capital sentencing. A readily available prior-conviction file is the surest source of what the prosecution knows, what it will emphasize, and what mitigating or contextual information may also be there.