SUPREME COURT ISSUES NARROW DECISION IN PENNSYLVANIA
CAPITAL CASE
Court Sidesteps Larger Issues
The United States Supreme Court today overturned a death
sentence in a Pennsylvania case, but it did so on the narrowest of the
three arguments presented. The Court’s 5-4 holding in Rompilla
v. Beard accepted the murderer’s argument that his lawyers were
ineffective in not reviewing the case file of his previous rape conviction.
However, the high court did not rule on his arguments (1) that the lawyers
should have done an exhaustive investigation of his childhood or (2)
that the standard Pennsylvania practice of not instructing the jury
on possibility of parole is invalid.
The opinion by Justice David Souter noted the Court’s prior holdings
that defense lawyers are not required “to scour the globe on the
off-chance something will turn up; reasonably diligent counsel may draw
a line when they have good reason to think further investigation would
be a waste.” The opinion reaffirms that lawyers may exercise reasonable
judgment to call off a search for mitigating evidence when it appears
fruitless. The argument on the Pennsylvania jury instruction, which
could have affected most capital cases in Pennsylvania and many in other
states, was dismissed in a footnote.
“This decision will change the outcome in relatively few capital
cases,” said Kent Scheidegger, Legal Director of the Criminal Justice
Legal Foundation. The Foundation filed a “friend of the court”
brief in the case, focused on the issues the Court chose not to decide.
“This case could have caused much more damage than it actually
will.”
The case involves the conviction and death sentence of habitual criminal
Ronald Rompilla for the 1988 robbery and murder of an Allentown, Pennsylvania,
bar owner. The victim’s son found his body lying in a pool of blood
on the floor of his bar at about 6:00 a.m. on the morning of January
18. He had been stabbed repeatedly and set on fire. The victim’s
wallet and money from the cash register had been stolen.
Witnesses reported that Rompilla was in the bar between 1:00 a.m. and
2:00 a.m. on the morning of January 18, and that during that time he
had visited the bathroom approximately ten times. Police determined
that the bathroom window was the murderer’s point of entry after
the bar closed. Rompilla told police that he left the bar at around
2:00 a.m. because he had run out of money. Later that morning a cab
driver testified that he had taken Rompilla to a motel and was paid
a cab fare of $9.10. The motel clerk testified that Rompilla checked
in using a false name, paid $121 for two nights rent, and flashed a
large amount of cash. A groundskeeper at the motel found the victim’s
wallet in the bushes a few feet from Rompilla’s motel room. The
victim’s blood was found on Rompilla’s sneakers, and they
matched a footprint in the blood on the floor of the murder scene. Finally,
Rompilla’s fingerprint was found on one of the knives used in the
murder. This evidence, along with other inconsistencies in Rompilla’s
statements to police, convinced the jury to find him guilty of the robbery
and murder.
In a separate hearing, the jury heard testimony from a pathologist
indicating that most of the stab wounds and other injuries to the victim’s
body were inflicted while he was alive and were intended to cause pain.
The jury also heard evidence of Rompilla’s prior criminal record,
including the testimony of a woman he had raped at knifepoint. The defense
attorney presented the testimony of several members of Rompilla’s
family who talked about his good qualities. In closing argument, she
made an impassioned plea for the jury to spare her client’s life.
In his post-conviction appeal, Rompilla argued that his trial attorney
had failed to uncover evidence of brain damage and a troubled childhood.
The court rejected this claim in a ruling indicating that the defense
attorney had retained experts to look for brain damage, who were provided
“whatever they asked for,” but that no brain damage was found.
While members of Rompilla’s family were interviewed regarding allegations
of a troubled childhood, they indicated his childhood was normal. Rompilla
also claimed that his sentencing jury should have been told by the judge
that he would never go free if given a life sentence. This instruction
was not required until the Supreme Court’s decision in Simmons
v. South Carolina, which was handed down several years after Rompilla’s
trial. The court rejected this claim, finding that the instruction was
only required in cases where the prosecutor’s arguments focused
upon a defendant’s future dangerousness, which did not occur in
this case.
Rompilla’s claims were then considered and rejected by the Pennsylvania
Supreme Court. In 2000, the federal District Court disagreed with the
state’s highest court, in a ruling accepting Rompilla’s ineffective
assistance of counsel claim, and overturned his death sentence. Four
years later, the federal Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the
District Court had failed to give adequate deference to the state court’s
decision.
When the United States Supreme Court agreed to review Rompilla’s
appeal, the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation joined the case to argue
that the state court’s review of both the jury instruction question
and Rompilla’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims followed
Supreme Court precedent, and that its decision on both issues was reasonable.
The Foundation also pointed out that federal rules should not require
defense attorneys to continue to pursue a line of investigation which
has proved fruitless.
“We are, of course, disappointed that the long-overdue and thoroughly
deserved sentence will not be carried out in this case,” Scheidegger
said. “However, we are pleased that the Court did not announce
a new rule that would have caused widespread disruption in other cases.”
CJLF Legal Director Kent Scheidegger is available
for comment at (916) 446-0345.
The Criminal Justice Legal Foundation has won four United States
Supreme Court decisions
benefitting law enforcement and public safety during the current term.
CJLF’s brief in this case is available on the internet at:
http://www.cjlf.org/briefs/Rompilla.pdf
|
