US Supreme Court Reverses Death Sentence 
Due to Attorney’s Ineffective Assistance

The United States Supreme Court followed their previous opinion in Williams v. Taylor and reversed the death sentence of Kevin Wiggins in an opinion issued June 26, 2003. Wiggins was under a sentence of death in Maryland.

Wiggins is a borderline mentally retarded man convicted of drowning an elderly Maryland woman who employed him as a handyman.

At his trial, defense attorneys failed to introduce evidence that Wiggins was repeatedly raped, beaten, and denied food as a child, at one point being forced to eat paint chips and garbage. His attorneys also failed to introduce evidence that his mother burned his hands on the stove as punishment.

In an opinion written by Justice O’Connor, the Supreme Court ruled that if the jurors knew the details of Wiggins horrendous childhood, they might well have chosen a life sentence for him instead of death. The Supreme Court ordered a new sentencing hearing for Wiggins.

In Williams v. Taylor, the Supreme Court ruled that defense lawyers have a constitutional duty to look into a client’s background for evidence that could convince jurors a death sentence is not appropriate. Attorneys must present this evidence at the mitigation phase of the client’s capital trial. Since guilty has already been established at the trial phase, the only goal at the mitigation phase is to save the client’s life.

Justices Scalia and Thomas dissented. The name of the case is Wiggins v. Smith.