SUPREME COURT REINFORCES STRICKLAND STANDARD FOR INCOMPETENCE OF COUNSEL

In Wong v. Belmontes the Supreme Court reinforced the Strickland standard for competence of counsel. Citing Stickland it stated:

To show deficient performance, Belmontes must establish that “counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.” Id., at 688. In light of “the variety of circumstances faced by defense counsel [and] the range of legitimate decisions regarding how best to represent a criminal defendant,” the performance inquiry necessarily turns on “whether counsel’s assistance was reasonable considering all the circumstances.” Id., at 688-689. At all points, “[j]udicial scrutiny of counsel’s performance must be highly deferential. . . To establish prejudice, Belmontes must show “a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been differentl

Fernando Belmontes was convicted of murder and sentenced to death after he bludgeoned Steacy McConnell to death by hitting her fifteen to twenty times in the head with a steel dumbbell bar during the course of a burglary. He took a stereo which he sold for a hundred dollars, using the money for an evening’s beer and drugs.

On habeas the Ninth Circuit found that counsel was ineffective in failing to present sufficient evidence at the penalty phase of the trial. The Supreme Court reversed. While it did not challenge the finding of incompetence it found that if the attorney was incompetent it was not prejudicial to Belmontes in that no amount of evidence would have convinced the jury to save Belmontes’ life.

During the penalty phase defense counsel called nine witnesses that testified about Belmontes difficult upbringing and his religious experiences in prison. But he was very careful not to raise any issue which would allow the prosecution to rebut his evidence with available evidence that Belmontes killed another person. If this evidence had come in his counsel was rightly afraid that the jury would have immediately sentenced Belmontes to death.

The additional evidence that could have been presented would have given details about his family situation and may have included expert testimony but if this evidence had come in to excuse his violence the prosecution would have been able to rebut the evidence with the prior killing. In that case, the Supreme Court felt the jury would probably have recommended death in any case and he was not prejudiced.

If you ask me anyone who would kill a person to get a stereo worth $100 which he used on booze and drugs for a wild night is too stupid to put to death.