Death Penalty - Right to Counse - Ninth Circuit Affirms That Courts Must Consider Aggravating Impact of Evidence When Evaluating Claims of Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

Harvard Law Review, May 2013 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Death Penalty - Right to Counse - Ninth Circuit Affirms That Courts Must Consider Aggravating Impact of Evidence When Evaluating Claims of Ineffective Assistance of Counsel


One of the Constitution's many mechanisms for protecting individual liberty is the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of "the Assistance of Counsel" for those individuals accused of crimes. (1) This guarantee requires more than just any counsel: defendants also have a right to counsel that provides effective assistance. (2) Nearly thirty years ago, in Strickland v. Washington, (3) the Supreme Court developed a standard for evaluating claims of ineffective assistance of counsel: defendants must prove both counsel's deficient performance and resulting prejudice. (4) Though, as many scholars have argued, it is particularly difficult for capital defendants to succeed under this standard, (5) it is not impossible. Recently, in Stankewitz v. Wong, (6) the Ninth Circuit vacated the death sentence of California's longest-serving death row inmate, (7) holding that his lawyer's failure to investigate and present relevant mitigating evidence at sentencing constituted ineffective assistance. The court also affirmed that when evaluating prejudice, it must consider potential aggravating effects of mitigating evidence, thus bringing the circuit in line with controlling ineffective assistance doctrine. But the majority failed to conduct a clear analysis under this standard, giving lower courts little guidance on weighing such aggravating evidence and leaving open the question of what balance of mitigating and aggravating effects produces a "reasonable probability" of a sentence other than death, as required by Strickland. (8)

In 1978, a jury convicted Douglas R. Stankewitz of murder and sentenced him to death. (9) During sentencing, Stankewitz's lawyer offered a limited presentation after overlooking a significant amount of potentially mitigating evidence in Stankewitz's background by declining to investigate his client's life history. (10) After unsuccessful appeals in California state courts, Stankewitz challenged both the guilt and penalty phases of his trial in a federal habeas petition, which the district court denied in its entirety. (11) In 2004, the Ninth Circuit reversed on Stankewitz's penalty-phase claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, (12) finding that were his assertions true, his trial lawyer's failure to investigate Stankewitz's background and present available mitigating evidence "would establish that [Stankewitz] received ineffective assistance at his penalty phase proceeding." (13) The circuit court remanded for an evidentiary hearing on Stankewitz's allegations. (14)

On remand in 2009, the district court expanded the record with thousands of pages of new documents, including reports by probation officers and psychological evaluations. (15) After examining the new record, the court found that "Stankewitz was psychologically and emotionally damaged by his upbringing" (16) and that he "had a very severe substance abuse problem that began at age 10." (17) The court held that counsel had been ineffective and granted Stankewitz habeas relief, vacating his death sentence and ordering the state to resentence him to life without parole or initiate proceedings to retry his sentence. (18)

The Ninth Circuit affirmed. Writing for the panel, Judge Fisher (19) held that the performance of Stankewitz's lawyer qualified as constitutionally ineffective under Strickland, and thus the district court properly granted Stankewitz a writ of habeas corpus. (20) After determining the proper standard of review, (21) Judge Fisher addressed the question of whether Stankewitz's trial counsel was ineffective under the Strickland standard. (22) He rejected the State's argument that counsel's possession of files containing much of the relevant mitigating evidence established the existence of a reasonable investigation. (23) The fact that counsel failed to investigate any of the evidence in the files he inherited from the lawyer who preceded him on Stankewitz's case, despite "tantalizing indications" of useful information, (24) was actually "evidence of--not an excuse for--his deficiency.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

Death Penalty - Right to Counse - Ninth Circuit Affirms That Courts Must Consider Aggravating Impact of Evidence When Evaluating Claims of Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?