Lawrence Joseph Jefferson v. Stephen Upton, Warden (560 U.S. 284)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided May 24, 2010 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 560 U.S. 284 · 130 S. Ct. 2217
- Decided
- May 24, 2010
- Term
- October Term 2009
- Vote
- 7–2
- Issue area
- Criminal Procedure
- Disposition
- Vacated and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
Opinion excerpt
Per Curiam. Petitioner Lawrence Jefferson, who has been sentenced to death, claimed in both state and federal courts that his lawyers were constitutionally inadequate because they failed to investigate a traumatic head injury that he suffered as a child. The state court rejected that claim after making a finding that the attorneys were'advised by an expert that such investigation was unnecessary. Under the governing federal statute, that factual finding is presumed correct unless any one of eight exceptions applies. See 28 U. S. C. §§2254(d)(l)-(8) (1994 ed.). But the Court of Appeals considered only one of those exceptions (specifically § 2254(d)(8)). And on that basis, it considered itself “duty-bound” to accept the state court’s finding, and rejected Jefferson’s claim. Because the Court of Appeals did not fully consider several remaining potentially applicable exceptions, we vacate its judgment and remand. I When Jefferson was a child, he “suffered a serious injury to his head.” Jefferson v. Terry, 490 P. Supp. 2d 1261, 1326 (ND Ga. 2007); see id., at 1320 (quoting Jefferson’s mother’s testimony that “a car ran over the top of his head” when he was two years old). The accident left his skull swollen and misshapen and his forehead visibly scarred. Jefferson v. Hall, 570 F. 3d 1283, 1311, 1315, n. 4 (CA11 2009) (Carnes, J., dissenting). During the District Court proceedings…
Excerpt of a 20,577-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.