Schriro v. Landrigan, 127 S.Ct 1933 (2007)
Facts:
• Arizona Jury found Jeffrey Landrigan guilty of felony murder and sentenced him to death.
• Landrigan failed in a direct appeal following his conviction, and filed a federal habeas application claiming that he had an ineffective assistance of counsel because they failed to explore additional grounds for mitigating evidence.
• His application was unsuccessful in the District court because; however he found success in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit where they found that the District Court abused its discretion in not giving an evidentiary hearing to Landrigan.
Issue:
• The Sixth amendment states that all accused have the right to have assistance of counsel for his defense.
• Was the Ninth Circuit correct in supporting Landrigan’s ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to provide mitigating evidence even though Landrigan had instructed his attorney to not provide any mitigating evidence?
Procedure:
• Landrigan appealed his conviction claiming ineffective assistance of counsel after being sentenced to death.
• Landrigan’s petition of habeus …show more content…
Landrigan’s understanding of the element of mitigation can be determined when he added in his hearing, “If you want to give me the death penalty just bring it on, I am ready for it.” Landrigan’s constant disorderly behavior during his sentencing provides reasoning that Landrigan would have undermined his attorney’s efforts in uncovering any mitigating evidence. Landrigan’s claim that he had an ineffective counsel because his Attorney did not explore all of the potential mitigating evidence is contradicting to his actions in court, where he refused to let his mother and ex-wife testify any mitigating evidence to the