Rompilla v. Beard is a recent decision of the Supreme Court of the United States about effectiveness of the trial counsel. The case started with a murder matter. Rompilla is sentenced to death by the Court of Pennsylvania, for the murder of James Scanlon in 1988, committed by torture. Rompilla's evidence in mitigation only consisted of a relatively brief testimony of his family members, and experts. However, in December 1995, Rompilla filed claims under the Pennsylvania Post Conviction Relief Act, the ineffective assistance by trial counsel, on the grounds that his lawyer did not present significant mitigating evidence about Rompilla's childhood, and his mental capacity. The Supreme Court of the US granted certiorari and didn't rule in favour of trial counsel on June, 20th 2005, but the decision was split 5-4. How should the Sixth Amendment be interpreted? What are the criteria to define effective counsel? Should the mitigation case be considered as effective only in case it is based on the elements the defence knows the prosecution will use?
[...] For this reason, while the court has referred to the ABA Standards for Criminal Justice as a useful point of reference, it has been careful to say these standards only guides” and do not establish the constitutional baseline for effective assistance of counsel. The majority, by parsing the guidelines as if they were binding statutory text, ignores this admonition. [...]
[...] investigate prior convictions . that could be used as aggravating circumstances or otherwise come into evidence. If a prior conviction is legally flawed, counsel should seek to have it set aside. Counsel may also find extenuating circumstances that can be offered to lessen the weight of a conviction.” Conclusion A per se rule requiring counsel in every case to review the records of prior convictions used by the State as aggravation evidence is a radical departure from Strickland and its progeny. [...]
[...] In the Rompilla's case, there is an obvious reason that the failure to examine his prior conviction file fell below the level of reasonable performance: counsel knew the prosecutor will use it. While purporting to operate within the Strickland framework, the Court in all these cases held that trial counsel's representation was constitutionally inadequate. In doing so, the Court used the ABA Standards for Criminal Justice as norms for counsel's performance in determining what constituted objectively reasonable representation. ii. The ABA Standards, explicit criterion of effectiveness of counsel The ABA Standards for Criminal Justice is, according to the court, a guide to determining what is reasonable in term of mitigation. [...]
[...] In Strickland v. Washington the SC set forth the factor the defendant must establish to demonstrate that counsel was ineffective: o Show that Counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of “reasonable” competence o If counsel hadn't been competent, show that the trial outcome would have been different if the counsel was competent (argument of the concurring opinion). Under Strickland, ineffective assistance is deficient performance by counsel resulting in prejudice, with performance being measured against an “objective standard of reasonableness”. [...]
[...] Counsel were “aware of Rompilla's priors” and “aware of the circumstances” surrounding these convictions. At the postconviction hearing, they also indicated that they had reviewed documents relating to the prior conviction. One of the primary reasons this Court has rejected a checklist approach to effective assistance of counsel is that each new requirement risks distracting attorneys from the real objective of providing vigorous advocacy as dictated by the facts and circumstances in the particular case. The Court's rigid requirement that counsel always review the case files of convictions the prosecution seeks to use at trial will be just such a distraction. [...]
Bibliographie, normes APA
Citez le doc consultéLecture en ligne
et sans publicité !Contenu vérifié
par notre comité de lecture
