Wiggins v. Smith
SimpleOriginal

Summary

The Supreme Court held that counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to investigate and present evidence of severe childhood abuse and neglect, creating a reasonable probability that a jury would have imposed a life sentence.

2003 | Federal Juristiction

Wiggins v. Smith

Keywords ineffective assistance; childhood abuse; neglect; life sentence; evidence
Open Case as PDF

Summary

The Supreme Court determined that a lawyer provided inadequate legal help. This was because the lawyer did not look into or show proof of serious abuse and neglect the client experienced as a child. It was likely that if the jury had known this information, they would have given a life sentence instead.

Open Case as PDF

Summary

The Supreme Court determined that a lawyer provided ineffective help. This was because the lawyer did not look into or show proof of serious abuse and neglect the client experienced as a child. The Court believed that if this evidence had been presented, there was a good chance a jury would have given a life sentence instead.

Open Case as PDF

Summary

The Supreme Court determined that a lawyer provided ineffective help to a client. This was because the lawyer did not look into or present information about the client's serious abuse and neglect as a child. It was likely that if a jury had known this information, they would have given a life sentence instead of the death penalty.

Open Case as PDF

Summary

The top court decided that a lawyer did not do a good job. The lawyer failed to look into and show proof of a client's terrible childhood. This proof could have made a jury give a life sentence instead of a death sentence.

Open Case as PDF

Footnotes and Citation

Cite

Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 534–38 (2003)

Highlights