ABSTRACT
Courts are generally reluctant to find that a defendant has had ineffective assistance of counsel, the Supreme Court did so in Wiggins v. Smith, 539 US 510 (2003), which involved the penalty phase of a capital crime. Wiggins subsequently sought post conviction relief in a Baltimore County Circuit Court, arguing that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel. In assessing Wiggins's Sixth Amendment claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the majority justices cited Strickland v. Washington, 466 US Although his attorneys had hired a psychologist, they relied only on cursory reports of Wiggins's background and failed to order preparation of a social history report, despite the availability of state funds for such a purpose. In dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, pointed to evidence from the lower courts' records showing that Wiggins's attorneys were aware of his background.
