William Thomas Hudson, III v. Michael Meisner, Warden

A criminal defendant’s “right to counsel” under the Sixth Amendment “is the right to the effective assistance of counsel.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686 (1984) (citation omitted). This Court has recognized that an attorney’s deficient investigation may prejudice a criminal defendant even though the attorney later asserts that an adequate investigation would not have “altered their chosen strategy.” Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 536 (2003). In the decision below, the Seventh Circuit assumed that trial counsel for Petitioner William T. Hudson, III, performed deficiently by failing to investigate and present the testimony of Hudson’s sister, Dana—who “was arguably ‘the only [] witness[] that [c]ould have corroborated [Hudson’s] theory of defense.’” App. 27a (alterations in original). The Seventh Circuit nevertheless held that Hudson was not prejudiced because trial counsel “did not believe that Dana’s testimony was necessary.” App. 9a-10a. The Question Presented is: Whether a court evaluating an ineffective assistance of counsel claim may rely on the testimony of counsel who has failed to conduct an adequate investigation in determining whether there was prejudice stemming from that deficiency.