Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Winston v. Kelly

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Decided January 27, 2010No. 09-2Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partGregory, Circuit Judge

Today’s decision overlooks the prejudice that Leon Jermain Winston suffered from the utter failure of counsel to investigate and present mitigating evidence at the penalty phase where he received a capital sentence. If we are to safeguard the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel in criminal cases, then we must conduct a meaningful review of the record when, as here, there is a vast quantity of unquestionably mitigating evidence that was never presented to the jury. Moreover, while it appears that Winston failed to raise the issue in his state habeas petition, I disagree…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Wiggins v. Smith, WardenSupreme Court of the United States · 2003
  3. Beck v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  4. Rompilla v. BeardSupreme Court of the United States · 2005
  5. Hopper v. EvansSupreme Court of the United States · 1982

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API