State v. Ford

Summary

In this opinion excerpt, Justice Johnson would grant a post-conviction writ application challenging the effectiveness of counsel in a capital murder case. The excerpt concludes that defense counsel’s lack of experience, failure to investigate mitigating evidence, and inadequate preparation for the penalty phase rendered the death sentence unreliable and caused actual prejudice. Justice Johnson would affirm the conviction but remand for resentencing.

Holdings

1. The dissent would hold that counsel's complete unfamiliarity with capital litigation, inadequate investigation of mitigating evidence, failure to secure relevant witnesses, and failure to prepare witnesses constituted deficient performance under Strickland.
2. The dissent would hold that relator suffered actual prejudice because counsel's failures caused a breakdown in the adversarial process and rendered the death penalty unreliable.

Questions Presented

1. Whether trial counsel provided ineffective assistance during the capital penalty phase by failing to investigate, develop, and present mitigating evidence.
2. Whether counsel's deficient penalty-phase performance caused actual prejudice by rendering the death sentence unreliable.
3. Whether the conviction should be affirmed while the death sentence is vacated or remanded for resentencing.

Disposition

remanded