The US Supreme Court said today that a death row inmate's constitutional rights had been violated when his lawyers failed to conduct additional investigation of his background for potentially helpful evidence that could have convinced a jury to spare his life.
By a 7-2 vote, the justices reversed a US appeals court ruling that the defense lawyers' decision not to investigate such evidence was "virtually unchallengeable" so long as they knew rudimentary facts about the defendant's background.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said for the court majority that the performance by lawyers for Maryland death row inmate Kevin Wiggins at his sentencing violated his constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel.
At sentencing, defense lawyers failed to offer any evidence to the jury that Wiggins had been beaten and raped as a child after being put in foster care when his abusive and alcoholic mother abandoned him.
The evidence could have convinced the jury to sentence him to life in prison instead of the death penalty, Wiggins argued in appealing to the Supreme Court.
Under state capital punishment laws, juries weigh aggravating factors, such as the brutality of the crime, that make a defendant more likely to get the death penalty.
They also weigh mitigating factors, such as the defendant's background, that support leniency.
Wiggins, who is borderline retarded, was convicted of the 1988 murder of a 77-year-old woman in her apartment in Woodlawn, Maryland.
She was found drowned in her bathtub. The evidence linking him to the murder was circumstantial. A few days after the murder, Wiggins was found driving the victim's car and had used her credit card to buy his girlfriend jewelry.
Wiggins worked as a painter in the victim's building and had been seen talking to her the day police believe she was murdered. A federal judge overturned the death sentence, but the appeals court reinstated it.
It ruled the legal representation had not been below minimum standards because the lawyers had been aware of their client's background, but made a strategic choice not to present that evidence to the jury.
The lawyers at sentencing argued Wiggins was not the killer instead of arguing for leniency based on his social history. The only mitigating evidence they offered was that Wiggins had no prior convictions for violent crimes.
The court set aside the death sentence and sent the case back for further proceedings on what sentence Wiggins should receive. Two groups representing lawyers, the American Bar Association and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and a group of current or former prosecutors including former US Attorney General Ms Janet Reno, supported Wiggins.