Roderick Napoleon Harris v. Texas

In Strickland v. Washington, this Court established its two-part test to determine whether representation is ineffective in violation of the Sixth Amendment: 1) whether the representation “fell below an objective standard of reasonableness”; and 2) whether the “deficient performance prejudiced the defense.” 466 U.S. 668, 687-88 (1984). Strickland directed the courts to identify objective standards of care for counsel defending an accused individual. In a capital case, prejudice exists where there is a “reasonable probability” that the defendant would not have received a death sentence had counsel effectively presented available mitigation evidence. Id. at 695. The questions presented are:

1. Whether a habeas court must articulate and apply prevailing professional norms in order to determine whether trial counsel’s representation was ineffective in violation of the Sixth Amendment?

2. When trial counsel failed to investigate mitigating evidence, whether a habeas court can adequately assess the lawyers’ performance and determine the existence of prejudice from a deficient performance by relying only on counsel’s post hoc representations that they exercised their professional judgment or that further investigation would not have changed the outcome of the trial?

3. Whether the standard for identifying prejudice under Strickland is a “preponderance of the evidence,” as held in this case, or is “reasonable probability” as articulated by this Court in Strickland?