Go to:	Briefs Menu	Cases Pending	Cases Decided

WIGGINS v. SMITH

United States Supreme Court No. 02-311

---

QUESTION PRESENTED: In Burger v. Kemp, 483 U. S. 776, 794 (1987), this Court held that, in the circumstances of that case, "counsel’s decision not to mount an all-out investigation into petitioner's background in search of mitigating circumstances was supported by reasonable professional judgment." The case now before the Court presents the following questions regarding this precedent:

1. Should the above holding of Burger be overruled and replaced with a rule requiring an "all-out investigation" in every capital case?

2. Can Question 1 be answered in the affirmative on habeas corpus, given the constraints of Teague v. Lane and 28 U. S. C. §2254(d)(1)?

3. Was the Maryland Court of Appeals' application of Burger to the facts of this case "unreasonable," within the meaning of 28 U. S. C. §2254(d)(1)?

ORAL ARGUMENT DATE: March 24, 2003

---

INTRODUCTION

Interest of amicus curiae
Summary of facts and case
Summary of argument

Argument - Part I

I. The Sixth Amendment does not require an exhaustive investigation of background in every capital case

A. The Strickland test
B. Reasonable investigation v. "scorched earth"
C. Effective representation v. unlimited expenditure

Part II - Conclusion

II. Defense counsel's tactical decision to forgo further investigation into the defendant's social history background was objectively reasonable under the circumstances of this case

III. The ABA's position, as such, is entitled to no special weight

Conclusion