The U.S. Supreme Court threw out a death sentence in a Pennsylvania murder case, ruling that defense attorneys should have investigated the defendant's past records for mitigating circumstances, although the defendant himself and his family told attorneys there was no mitigating evidence.

Ronald Rompilla was convicted of murder and sentenced to death for robbing, stabbing and setting on fire an Allentown tavern owner. The court ruled that his public defenders should have reviewed court records that revealed their client's possible mental retardation and traumatic childhood, which could have been mitigating circumstances in the penalty phase of the trial.

Rompilla's public defenders relied on statements from mental health professionals and their client's family members that there were no mental health issues that would mitigate his sentencing.

But Rompilla's upbringing and his possible mental illness were issues in a previous conviction. The prosecutors in the case planned to use records of the previous conviction against him in the penalty phase of the trial and those records were available in the courtroom.

The Supreme Court ruled, on a 5-4 vote, that defense attorneys should have examined those files. Justice David H. Souter, writing the majority opinion, said, "It flouts prudence to deny that a defense lawyer should try to look at a file he knows the prosecution will cull for aggravating evidence, let alone when the file is sitting in the trial courthouse, open for the asking."

Needle-In-A-Haystack

Justice Anthony Kennedy, in a stinging dissent, said Rompilla's attorneys had reasonably relied on testimony from mental health experts and family members.

"We have reminded federal courts often of the need to show the requisite level of deference to state court judgments," Kennedy wrote. "This elevation of needle-in-haystack claims to the status of constitutional violations will benefit undeserving defendants and saddle states with the considerable costs of retrial and/or resentencing."

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was the swing vote in the case. She wrote a separate opinion saying the ruling should not be interpreted too broadly and the issue of legal competency would continue to be decided on a case-by-case basis.

"In the particular circumstances of this case, the attorneys' failure to obtain and review the case file from their client's prior conviction did not meet standards of reasonable professional judgment," O'Connor wrote.

See Also:
High Court Orders New Death Penalty Trial