Wiggins v. Smith

Wiggins v. Smith,  is a case in which the United States Supreme Court addressed the  constitutional rights  guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, which the Court has previously determined includes the right to effective assistance of legal counsel.

In Strickland v. Washington,, the United States Supreme Court established that the defendant must demonstrate two factors in order to establish that counsel was ineffective. First, it must be shown that counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonable competence, and second, if  counsel had not been competent, that the trial outcome would likely have been different had the  counsel been competent. The Court further held that the counsel's decision in defending a client facing the death penalty must be based on a thorough investigation of all possible mitigating factors. Failing that, it must be based   on competent professional judgment providing sound reasons for limiting the investigation.

The Supreme Court made clear that such an investigation is a key component of the strategic decision regarding what, if any, mitigating evidence to present during a sentencing hearing.

Facts of case
On September 17, 1998, the victim was found dead in her bathtub, with signs of sexual assault and her apartment ransacked. Defendant Wiggins had been painting at her apartment building and was seen conversing with her on September 15. That same evening he went shopping with the victim's credit cards and took some of her jewelry to a pawnbroker. Four days later, Wiggins was arrested while driving the victim's car.

The defendant was found guilty of first degree murder after a bench trial. After the trial, the defendant elected to have a jury decide the sentence on the murder conviction. Counsel's investigation of the defendant's background was rudimentary and contained only a superficial knowledge of his history from a few sources, omitting  the information in detailed social service reports of severe physical and sexual abuse. The record of the sentencing proceedings suggests that counsels' failure to investigate the defendant's background stemmed from inattention, not strategic judgment. Counsel failed to follow the American Bar Association guidelines in not gathering all such information. Counsel said they had been intent on proofing the defendant did not kill the victim with his own hand and had not prepared for the sentencing phase. Counsel presented no mitigating evidence to the jury at the sentencing phase. The jury concluded that the defendant was a principal in  the first degree murder of the victim and sentenced the defendant to death.

Wiggins obtained new counsel and sought post conviction relief on the grounds  that his trial counsel was ineffective  by failing to investigate and present mitigating evidence of his dysfunctional background. He presented expert testimony by a forensic mental health specialist who described his personal history including the severe physical and sexual abuse he had endured and its effect upon him.

At a hearing, one of Wiggins' trial counsels testified that he had reviewed petitioner's social services records before sentencing and knew that it could be a mitigating factor in a capital case but believed that the way to avoid the death penalty was to create reasonable doubt that petitioner was a principal in the first degree rather than present the mitigating factors.

The state provided a post-conviction review of his case and the Maryland Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's findings. Wiggins then filed for federal habeas corpus relief. The Federal District Court found that defense counsel did not provide effective assistance at sentencing. However, on appeal, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, finding that defense counsel provided reasonable application of Strickland v. Washington standards. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court granted Wiggins' petition for certiorari.

Decision
The Supreme Court granted a new sentencing hearing, holding that the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel was violated. Trial counsel failed to adequately investigate and present mitigating evidence such as the defendant's personal and social history of severe physical abuse and sexual assault, and none of this information was presented at the penalty phase of trial, thus  prejudicing Wiggins’ defense.

Significance
The Supreme Court attempted to improve on the vague and generalized language in Strickland v. Washington by adding an American Bar Association Guideline 11.8.6. This guideline suggests the   content  of counsel’s investigative efforts should contain "medical history, educational history, employment and training history, family and social history, prior adult and juvenile correctional experience, and religious and cultural influences." This clarification allows for the presentation of psychological analysis without the presence of specific diagnosis.