In Schriro v. Landrigan, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying an evidentiary hearing of the defendant’s claim he had received ineffective assistance of counsel in the penalty phase of his trial.
The record reflected that Landrigan interrupted attempts to present mitigating evidence, and asked his wife and mother not to testify. The Ninth Circuit had held, en banc, that these instructions during the penalty phase could not excuse a failure to investigate mitigation prior to trial.
The Supreme Court, with Thomas authoring the opinion, held that Landrigan’s instructions against presenting mitigating evidence prevented any prejudice arising from a failure to investigate. The Ninth Circuit’s reasoning that the record did not establish that Landrigan’s instruction that no mitigating evidence be presented was “informed and knowing” was rejected as contradicted by the record, although Thomas also noted that the Supreme Court had never imposed an “informed and knowing” standard upon a defendant’s decision to present evidence. Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy and Alito joined in the opinion.
Stevens drafted the dissent, joined by the remainder of the court. The dissent noted that there has never been disagreement that defense counsel’s failure to obtain thorough psychiatric review was below the standard of representation. Stevens explains that the failure of counsel to investigate mitigation meant that Landrigan did not learn of his psychological condition until year later, even though he may have known of individual facts, such his mother’s use of alcohol during pregnancy, her subsequent abandonment of him, and the childhood mistreatment his suffered.
