On June 29, the U.S. Supreme Court returned a death penal­ty case to the Georgia Supreme Court to recon­sid­er whether the fail­ures of the defen­dan­t’s lawyer prob­a­bly affect­ed the sen­tence he received. Demarcus Sears was sen­tenced to death in 1993 for the mur­der of a woman in Cobb County. Sears’ attor­neys attempt­ed to con­vince jurors to spare his life by say­ing that he came from a sta­ble and lov­ing fam­i­ly who would be dev­as­tat­ed if he received the death penal­ty. However, the defense lawyers failed to con­duct an ade­quate inves­ti­ga­tion of Sears’ child­hood. They neglect­ed to show that his par­ents had been in a phys­i­cal­ly abu­sive rela­tion­ship, that he was sex­u­al­ly abused and inap­pro­pri­ate­ly dis­ci­plined. By the time Sears reached high school, he was described as severe­ly learn­ing dis­abled and as severe­ly behav­ioral­ly hand­i­capped.” One expert deter­mined he was among the most impaired indi­vid­u­als in the pop­u­la­tion” as a result of sig­nif­i­cant frontal lobe brain dam­age. Although a low­er court in Georgia found the defense attor­neys con­duct to be faulty, it con­clud­ed that the mit­i­gat­ing evi­dence that was not pre­sent­ed would not have made a dif­fer­ence. The U.S. Supreme Court held that the evi­dence might well have helped the jury under­stand Sears and his hor­ren­dous acts .…” The Court grant­ed cer­tio­rari, vacat­ed the judg­ment below, and ordered Georgia to recon­sid­er the pos­si­ble prej­u­dice to Sears from the inef­fec­tive rep­re­sen­ta­tion ren­dered by his lawyers, espe­cial­ly in light of oth­er Supreme Court deci­sions where attor­neys failed to con­duct a thorough investigation.

The Court con­clud­ed, A prop­er analy­sis of prej­u­dice under Strickland would have tak­en into account the new­ly uncov­ered evi­dence of Sears’ sig­nif­i­cant’ men­tal and psy­cho­log­i­cal impair­ments, along with the mit­i­ga­tion evi­dence intro­duced dur­ing Sears’ penal­ty phase tri­al, to assess whether there is a rea­son­able prob­a­bil­i­ty that Sears would have received a dif­fer­ent sen­tence after a con­sti­tu­tion­al­ly suf­fi­cient mit­i­ga­tion inves­ti­ga­tion.” Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito would not have grant­ed cer­tio­rari. Justices Scalia and Thomas dis­sent­ed from the Court’s deci­sion to send the case back for reconsideration.

(B. Rankin, Supreme Court says Cobb death case needs anoth­er look,” Atlanta Journal Constitution, June 30, 2010; Sears v. Upton, No. 09 – 8858 (cert. grant­ed, judg­ment vacat­ed, and remand­ed June 29, 2010) (per curi­am)). See Representation or click here to read more U.S. Supreme Court cases.

Citation Guide