Supreme Court orders new trial for death-row inmate

Monday, June 20, 2005 | 9:30 a.m.

SUN WIRE SERVICES

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court, nearing the end of a term marked by a host of second-guess rulings on death penalty sentences, concluded today that the attorney for a man convicted of killing a tavern owner had done sloppy work.

In a 5-4 decision, justices ruled in the 17-year-old murder case that the lawyer for Ronald Rompilla had not properly investigated possible evidence of mental retardation, and they ordered a new trial for the defendant.

Rompilla, now 56, was convicted of robbing, stabbing and setting on fire a tavern owner in Allentown, Pa., in 1988. It was the second time in a week that the high court overturned a death row sentence, citing an inadequate trial.

In his appeal, Rompilla argued that public defenders were wrong when they failed to review records showing mitigating evidence of mental retardation and a traumatic upbringing, even after prosecutors warned that they planned to use the documents against him.

Writing for the majority, Justice David H. Souter sided with the defendant.

"We hold that even when a capital defendant's family members and the defendant himself have suggested that no mitigating evidence is available, his lawyer is bound to make reasonable efforts to obtain and review material that counsel knows the prosecution will probably rely on," Souter wrote.

The ruling is a defeat for death penalty advocates, who have pushed for less federal court review of capital trials. Under Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the conservative-leaning court has generally agreed, declining to overturn death sentences except when they are "objectively unreasonable" given all the evidence at trial.

In a biting dissent, Justice Anthony Kennedy argued that the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia was right to uphold a state ruling that the attorney representation was adequate. He reasoned that Rompilla's attorneys had reasonably relied on testimony from mental health experts and family members.

The majority ruling unreasonably imposes a requirement on cash-strapped attorneys to pore through reams of documents in death penalty cases, even after conducting scores of interviews, for fear of missing something marginally useful, Kennedy said.

"We have reminded federal courts often of the need to show the requisite level of deference to state court judgments," Kennedy wrote. "By ignoring our admonition today, the court adopts a do-as-we-say, not-as-we do approach to federal habeas review."

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a Reagan appointee, was the swing voter in the case. She filed a separate opinion emphasizing that her conclusion was based on the remarkable circumstances of Rompilla's case, in which attorneys failed to follow up on potential leads after the prosecutor tipped them off.

In other action today, the court:

Without comment, justices let stand a lower court ruling ordering the compensation. The Cleveland Police Patrolmen's Association said the city's refusal to grant the time off violated the rights of officers under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Without comment, justices let stand a lower court ruling against Vladimir Rodriguez, a Florida man who challenged a nine-year drug sentence he received under mandatory guidelines that the Supreme Court subsequently threw out as unconstitutional.

The one-paragraph order, issued in Washington, revived a Justice Department case against Florida resident Alvin Smith for producing lewd photographs of young girls. The Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had overturned Smith's conviction, saying his conduct was a local matter.

The justices said they will hear an appeal by Illinois Tool Works Inc., which is trying to block a lawsuit over devices it sells for use in industrial printers.