Home › Case briefs › Criminal Procedure

Wiggins v. Smith

Supreme Court of the United States · 2003 · Criminal Procedure

Criminal ProcedureIneffective assistance of counselCapital sentencingHabeas corpusSixth Amendmentcapital sentencingmitigation evidenceduty to investigate

Facts

At capital sentencing, Wiggins' lawyers sought bifurcation so they could first argue he was not the actual killer and then present mitigation if necessary, but the trial court denied that motion. Although counsel told the jury it would hear that Wiggins had a difficult life, they introduced no life-history evidence and relied only on a presentence investigation report, DSS records, and psychological testing. Those records showed an alcoholic mother, neglect, foster-care instability, and emotional difficulties, but counsel did not commission a social history report even though funds were available. In postconviction proceedings, new evidence showed severe physical abuse, sexual molestation, repeated rape in foster care, homelessness, and diminished mental capacities.

Issue

Whether the Maryland Court of Appeals unreasonably applied Strickland in rejecting Wiggins' claim that sentencing counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to reasonably investigate and present mitigating evidence about his background. Also, whether that failure prejudiced the sentencing outcome.

Rule

Under Strickland, counsel must make a reasonable investigation or a reasonable decision that makes further investigation unnecessary, and strategic choices made after less than complete investigation are reasonable only to the extent that reasonable professional judgments support limiting the investigation. On federal habeas review under AEDPA, relief may be granted when the state court identifies the correct governing principle but applies it in an objectively unreasonable way, or rests on an unreasonable determination of the facts.

🔒

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 Milwaukee, defense lawyers for Damon Pierce reviewed a presentence report and county child-welfare file showing that Damon’s mother was chronically intoxicated, he missed long stretches of school, and he was repeatedly moved among foster homes. Although court-approved funds were available for a mitigation specialist, counsel stopped there and presented only testimony that Damon had no prior convictions.

Under the governing Sixth Amendment standard, which is the strongest argument that counsel performed deficiently?

Explanation. Counsel must make a reasonable investigation or a reasonable decision that makes further investigation unnecessary. Strategic choices after a limited investigation are reasonable only if reasonable professional judgment supports stopping. Where existing records reveal neglect, foster-care instability, and similar warning signs, stopping without further inquiry is deficient.