Jefferson v. Upton

Background

A man sentenced to death said his trial lawyers were ineffective because they never pursued testing for a serious head injury he suffered as a child. Doctors who later testified said the injury likely left him with permanent brain damage that caused impulsive and aggressive behavior. Before trial a psychologist recommended neuropsychological testing, but the lawyers did not obtain it. The state habeas court adopted an opinion drafted by the prosecutor after an ex parte request and credited the lawyers’ account that further testing was unnecessary.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court examined how federal courts should treat state-court factual findings under the pre-1996 federal habeas rule. That rule presumes state findings correct unless one of eight statutory exceptions applies. The Court found the Court of Appeals had considered only one of those exceptions and therefore erred in treating the state findings as automatically entitled to deference. The Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals’ judgment and sent the case back for lower courts to determine whether any other exceptions apply. The Court explicitly did not decide whether the lawyers’ conduct violated the defendant’s constitutional right to effective counsel.

Real world impact

Lower courts must more carefully evaluate whether state fact findings deserve a federal presumption of correctness. People challenging convictions, including those facing the death penalty, may obtain further factfinding or hearings when state procedures or orders appear doubtful. This ruling is procedural and does not finally resolve guilt, sentence, or constitutional error.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Scalia dissented, arguing the Court reached a statutory issue that was not clearly raised below and should have either denied review or decided the ineffective-assistance question.