2009 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States
[1] Because per curiam decisions are issued from the Court as an institution, these opinions all lack the attribution of authorship or joining votes to specific justices.
He filed a writ of habeas corpus in federal court, arguing, inter alia, that his sentence violated the Sixth Amendment.
The District Court granted his petition on that basis alone and ordered the defendant to be resentenced, and did not discuss his other claims as it considered those moot.
Using a strategy he had used since a teenager, he picked up a homosexual man at a gay bar and lured him into a secluded place to rob him; in this instance, Van Hook concluded the robbery by stabbing the victim to death and disfiguring his body.
On remand, the Sixth Circuit panel again granted the petition, finding that Van Hook's attorneys were ineffective during Van Hook's sentencing for failing to adequately investigate and present mitigating evidence, for not securing an independent mental health expert, and for failing to object to damaging evidence in an investigation report.
In its third opinion, the panel granted relief to Van Hook on the sole ground that his lawyers did not adequately investigate and present mitigating evidence, relying on the American Bar Association Guidelines for the Appointment and Performance of Defense Counsel in Death Penalty Cases published in 2003.
The Supreme Court ruled that the Sixth Circuit erred in treating the ABA Guidelines as "inexorable commands" rather than as "evidence of what reasonably diligent attorneys would do."
The Sixth Circuit ultimately "focused on the number of aggravating factors instead of their weight...leading it to overstate further the effect additional mitigating evidence might have had."
Alito filed a concurrence, emphasizing his understanding that the Supreme Court's opinion "in no way suggests that the [ABA Guidelines] have special relevance in determining whether an attorney’s performance meets the standard required by the Sixth Amendment."
For the third time, the Supreme Court set aside the Ninth Circuit's reversal of a death sentence in a California murder case.
The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, in violation of the Sixth Amendment, failed the two-prong test under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), because he could not establish that prejudice resulted even if his attorney's performance was constitutionally deficient.
In 1981, Belmontes broke into a woman's home in Victor, California, and bludgeoned her to death, repeatedly striking her in the head with a steel bar.
Constrained by that limit, the defense attorney nevertheless presented several witnesses, and testimony from Belmontes himself, regarding the abuse he suffered as a child, and his religious conversion while in jail on the accessory charge.
The District Court denied Belmontes' petition for habeas relief, and the Ninth Circuit reversed, finding error in the jury's instructions.
On remand, the Ninth Circuit again granted Belmontes relief, this time on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel during the sentencing phase of his trial.
The Supreme Court dismissed as "fanciful" the notion that the jury's result could have been different if only the defense attorney had called more witnesses, in light of the circumstances of the murder.
The Supreme Court reversed the death sentence of a Korean War veteran who suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder, ruling that his defense attorney's failure to uncover or present any mitigating evidence regarding his military service or his mental health deprived him of the effective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment.
The reviewing state trial court conducted a 2-day evidentiary hearing, during which Porter presented extensive mitigating evidence that was apparently unknown to his penalty-phase attorney.
In reversing, the Supreme Court held that the decision of Porter's attorney not to investigate did not reflect reasonable professional judgment.
The U.S. Supreme Court reversed and remanded, ruling that the officer's attempted entry was a reasonable exception to the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches.
The Court had originally granted certiorari and scheduled the case for argument, but then removed it from the calendar and decided it purely on the briefs.
Twenty-two members of a Chinese ethnic minority called Uighurs were captured by U.S. forces at a terrorist training camp shortly after the beginning of the Afghanistan War.
Sotomayor filed a dissent, joined by Kennedy, to clarify her understanding of the rule the Chief Justice proposed in his opinion.
He subsequently argued in state and then federal court that his lawyers had been constitutionally inadequate because they failed to investigate a traumatic head injury he sustained as a child.
The state court held that the defense lawyers made a reasonable investigation into his mental health and thus Jefferson's claim was rejected.
Under federal law, facts found by the state must be presumed correct, unless any of eight criteria are met, as outlined in Townsend v. Sain.
On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit upheld the ruling of the state court because they were "duty bound" to accept their factual findings.
The case was remanded back to the federal court to reconsider whether or not to accept the factual evidence found by the state by applying all eight criteria.
A lower court ruled that the Sears' claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, in violation of the Sixth Amendment, failed the two-prong test under Strickland v. Washington.
Proper application of the prejudice test of Strickland v. Washington "requires precisely the type of probing and fact-specific analysis that the state trial court failed to undertake."
