Rompilla vs Beard - case brief PDF

Preview

Summary

case brief...

Description

Andy Chrispen CJS 305.001 Rompilla vs. Beard 545 U.S. 374 (2005)

FACTS: On the morning of January 14, 1988, James Scanlon was found dead in the bar he owned. He was stabbed repeatedly and Ronald Rompilla was indicted for the murder. There was an asking for the death penalty and two public defenders were assigned the case. The jury found him guilty and the prosecutor sought to prove three aggravating factors to justify a death sentence. These included that the murder was committed in the course of another felony, the murder was committed by torture, and that Rompilla had a significant history of felony convictions indicating the use or threat of violence. The jury found all of these proven. Rompilla’s family testified for mercy and wanted empathy from the jury. The jurors ended up sentencing him to death. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the conviction and sentence. In December of 1995 Rompilla filed claims under the Pennsylvania Post Conviction Relief Act with new lawyers. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania denied the relief. Rompilla then petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus saying that he was inadequately represented. The Federal District Court granted this and said that he was in fact inadequately represented. QUESTION: Is it possible to be wrongfully convicted because of a bad showing by your counsel? YES OPINION: Souter, J. along with Stevens, O’Connor, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ. 1. This is not a case where the lawyers just simply did not try a. Looked at family relations b. Mental health 2. When new counsel came in they looked at several factors a. Leaving school b. Alcohol problems 3. There does not need to be a digging of every possible thing hoping that something will turn up in order to be effective counsel however a. They should have gone more into his prior conviction history though 4. The defense needed to dig deeper on some of the facts of the case a. They knew the prosecution would be attacking certain areas 5. We think Rompilla has shown beyond any doubt that counsel’s lapse was prejudicial 6. There was a lot of opportunities to find mitigating leads that were not used 7. Judgment of the Third Circuit court is reversed DISSENT: Kennedy, J. along with Rehnquist, C.J. and Scalia and Thomas, JJ. 1. The Court is saying that the counsel was ineffective because it did not look at a couple of things 2. This was a brutal crime that simply was too harsh 3. We should not tell counsel how to do their jobs

Andy Chrispen CJS 305.001 4. Charles and Dantos knew about more than the Court is giving them credit for 5. This could make things a lot worse for lawyers...