Legal Opinion · Dissent

Lezmond Mitchell v. United States

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided June 19, 2015No. 11-99003Published

1DissentReinhardt, Circuit Judge

I would grant Mitchell’s petition for ha-beas relief with respect to the penalty, phase of his trial because he was deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to effective counsel. Counsel’s “good guy” defense was unreasonable in light of the facts and circumstances of the crimes Mitchell committed, and also because the minimal investigation underlying counsel’s choice of strategy was constitutionally deficient. Before delving into the myriad ways in which counsel performed deficiently, however, I would note that this is a highly unusual death-penalty case in several respects, all of which…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Benjamin Wai Silva v. Jeanne S. Woodford, Warden, San Quentin State PrisonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002
  2. Richard Adams Hovey v. Robert L. Ayers, Jr., Acting Warden, California State Prison at San QuentinCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2006
  3. Clarence Ray Allen v. Jeanne S. Woodford, Warden, of the California State Prison at San QuentinCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2005
  4. Fred Berre Douglas v. Jeanne S. Woodford, Warden, of Rswl California State Prison at San QuentinCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
  5. Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984

18 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