Hinton v. Alabama (2013)
- Docket
- 13-6440
- Decided
- 2013-01-01
Summary
Question: Did the Alabama courts properly apply the rule established by the Supreme Court's decision in Strickland v. Washington , which stated that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is violated if the trial attorney's performance falls below an objective standard of reasonableness and there is a reasonable chance the outcome of the trial was affected? Conclusion: No. In a per curiam opinion, the Supreme Court held that an attorney's ignorance on a point of law that is both fundamental to the case and could be resolved with a cursory investigation into the relevant state statutes represents inadequate assistance of counsel. Because Hinton's trial attorney was not aware that Alabama law allowed him to request and receive more funding for expert witnesses, his performance failed to reach the reasonableness standard set by Strickland . The Court also held that it could not determine whether these errors prejudiced the jury to the extent that they affected the outcome of the trial, so it remanded the case for further consideration.