Kimmelman v. Morrison

1986-06-26

Headline: Court allows federal habeas review of ineffective-lawyer claims when attorneys miss filing timely suppression motions, clarifying defendants can seek relief even if the underlying Fourth Amendment claim was defaulted.

Holding: The Court held that federal habeas courts may consider Sixth Amendment ineffective-assistance claims based on a lawyer’s failure to file a timely suppression motion and are not barred by Stone v. Powell, permitting relief in appropriate cases.

Real World Impact:

Permits federal habeas review of ineffective-assistance claims tied to missed suppression motions.
Allows defendants to seek relief even when Fourth Amendment objections were defaulted in state court.
Requires courts to apply Strickland’s incompetence-and-prejudice test before granting retrial.

Topics: ineffective assistance of counsel, search and seizure, federal habeas review, criminal appeals

Summary

Background

A man convicted in New Jersey of raping a 15-year-old challenged his trial after discovering police had seized a bedsheet from his apartment without a warrant. His trial lawyer never requested pretrial discovery, learned of the seizure only when trial began, and failed to make a timely motion to suppress the sheet. The trial judge admitted the sheet and convicted the defendant. He later raised an ineffective-assistance claim in federal court, arguing his lawyer’s failures caused prejudice by allowing the disputed evidence into the trial.

Reasoning

The main question was whether the narrow rule that limits federal habeas review of search-and-seizure claims (the exclusionary-rule context) should also block federal review of Sixth Amendment claims when the lawyer’s main error was not filing a suppression motion. The Court held the Sixth Amendment right to effective counsel is distinct and personal, so federal courts may hear ineffective-assistance claims under the Strickland standard (showing both unreasonableness and a reasonable probability of a different outcome). The Court affirmed the appeals court that found counsel deficient and sent the case back for a focused inquiry into whether the lawyer’s failures actually prejudiced the trial result.

Real world impact

Defendants whose lawyers failed to investigate or to file timely suppression motions can pursue federal habeas relief on Sixth Amendment grounds in appropriate cases. The ruling does not automatically exclude the evidence or resolve the underlying Fourth Amendment dispute; the State may get a new hearing to show the search was lawful or that no prejudice occurred.

Dissents or concurrances

A separate opinion agreed with the outcome but warned the Court did not decide whether admission of reliable but illegally seized evidence can ever, by itself, satisfy Strickland prejudice.