On January 14, the U.S. Supreme Court (6 – 3) hand­ed down a rul­ing in Jennings v. Stephens, a cap­i­tal case from Texas deal­ing with inef­fec­tive assis­tance of coun­sel. The Court held that when a defen­dant wins relief in a low­er fed­er­al court and the state appeals, the defen­dant may offer the­o­ries reject­ed by the low­er court as part of his defense of the relief grant­ed. He does not have to file a new appeal on that reject­ed the­o­ry. In his ini­tial fed­er­al appeal (habeas cor­pus), Robert Jennings had pre­sent­ed three instances of inef­fec­tive assis­tance of coun­sel. The District Court grant­ed him relief based on two of them, but reject­ed the third. The state appealed the deci­sion to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and Jennings pre­sent­ed all three instances in his defense. The Fifth Circuit said it did not have juris­dic­tion to con­sid­er the third claim because Jennings’ lawyers had not obtained a ​“cer­tifi­cate of appeal­a­bil­i­ty.” Justice Scalia wrote the major­i­ty opin­ion. Jennings’ case will be returned to the Fifth Circuit to con­sid­er his third claim of ineffectiveness.

(J. Deisher-Edwards, ​“Supreme Court rules on appel­late pro­ce­dure for habeas cor­pus peti­tions,” Jurist, January 14, 2015). Read the Court’s deci­sion in Jennings v. Stephens. See U.S. Supreme Court.

Citation Guide