Leon Phillip Jacob v. Texas

Petitioner was convicted of solicitation of two capital murders and sentenced to life in prison. The cases were indefensible, but he demanded a trial. Trial counsel knew that petitioner had a history of mental illness, including treatment at a hospital that diagnosed him with bipolar and personality disorders. Counsel hired a psychologist to evaluate him but abandoned the investigation because petitioner refused to cooperate. The prosecution disclosed the hospital records, but counsel failed to introduce them or present expert testimony to explain petitioner’s mental illness. Counsel falsely told the court during trial that he could not obtain the records and that the psychologist had “nothing to testify about” and failed to communicate with counsel. Petitioner alleged on habeas that counsel was ineffective in failing to present mitigating evidence at punishment. The habeas court found that counsel performed deficiently in failing to obtain and present evidence of petitioner’s mental illness documented in the records; in lying about his knowledge of the records; and in failing to present expert testimony to explain the mitigating evidence. But the court concluded that petitioner did not suffer prejudice, despite receiving maximum sentences. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (TCCA) denied relief. The question presented is: Whether the Texas courts’ prejudice analysis defies this Court’s precedents in Strickland v.