Summary
The Supreme Court determined that defense counsel failed to investigate and present mitigating evidence. This evidence encompassed factors such as childhood neglect, family violence, mental illness, trauma, and youth incarceration. Consequently, the Texas ruling was vacated, and the case was remanded for a review of prejudice.
Summary
The Supreme Court determined that the attorney did not adequately investigate or present evidence that could have reduced the severity of the client's sentence. This evidence included details about the client's history of childhood neglect, family violence, mental illness, past trauma, and periods of youth incarceration. Consequently, the Court overturned the Texas court's original decision and sent the case back. A lower court must now review whether the attorney's failure to present this evidence unfairly harmed the client.
Summary
The Supreme Court determined that the lawyer did not properly investigate and present evidence that could have lessened the penalties. This evidence included details about childhood neglect, family violence, mental health issues, past trauma, and time spent in jail as a young person. As a result, the Court overturned the Texas court's decision. The case was sent back to a lower court to determine if the lawyer's failure actually harmed the person's case.
Summary
The highest court in the country said a lawyer did not look into or show important facts. These facts were about the person's tough past, such as not being cared for as a child, violence in the family, mind problems, very bad experiences, and being in jail as a young person. Because of this, the court stopped the decision made in Texas. It sent the case back to be checked again to see if the person was treated unfairly.