Romero v. United States

Background

A criminal defendant, Orlando Romero, challenged his trial lawyer’s performance after his attorney failed to present exculpatory testimony and did not call witnesses who had exonerated him at a hearing. Romero appealed to the Second Circuit, which applied its long-standing "farce and mockery" test and rejected his claim, and Romero then asked the Supreme Court to review that ruling.

Reasoning

The central question was what minimum level of lawyer competence the Constitution requires for criminal defendants. The Supreme Court declined to take the case and denied review, so it did not decide that question. In a dissent, Justice White explained that the Second Circuit’s "farce and mockery" standard is much tougher to meet than the "reasonable competence" standard used by other federal appeals courts and argued the Court should resolve this conflict.

Real world impact

Because the Supreme Court refused review, the Second Circuit’s standard remains in effect for cases in that region, and the broader split among appeals courts about how to judge lawyer performance persists. Romero’s specific claim is not resolved by the Supreme Court’s decision and could still be addressed later by lower courts or a future Supreme Court ruling, so the rule on lawyer competence remains unsettled nationally.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice White dissented from the denial, urging review and calling the question central to the fair administration of criminal justice; he noted he had previously urged the Court to take up this issue.