Supreme Court Rejects ‘Nothing to Lose’ Standard for Ineffective Assistance Claim
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled against an inmate convicted of murder who claims his lawyer provided ineffective assistance of counsel by advising him to withdraw an insanity plea.
The opinion (PDF) by Justice Clarence Thomas said that the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had improperly determined that the legal advice was ineffective because the lawyer had nothing to lose by offering the defense.
The San Francisco-based appeals court had found the advice violated standards of professional conduct because it was the only affirmative defense for defendant Alexandre Mirzayance. But Thomas ruled that Mirzayance needed to prove that his lawyer’s advice was deficient and that it had prejudiced him. The lawyer was not required to present a defense that stood little chance of success, Thomas said.
The strategy by Mirzayance’s lawyer was to persuade jurors to convict on the lesser charge of second-degree murder, then to seek a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity in the second phase of trial. The lawyer advised Mirzayance to withdraw the insanity plea when his parents signaled they were unwilling or reluctant to testify about their son’s struggle with mental illness. Other evidence that would have been presented was similar to information already provided in the guilt phase of trial.
“We conclude that the state court’s decision to deny Mirzayance’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim did not violate clearly established federal law,” Thomas wrote. “The Court of Appeals reached a contrary result based, in large measure, on its application of an improper standard of review—it blamed counsel for abandoning the NGI claim because there was nothing to lose by pursuing it.”
“This court has never required defense counsel to pursue every claim or defense, regardless of its merit, viability, or realistic chance for success,” Thomas said.
The 9th Circuit had twice ruled on behalf of Mirzayance, the second time after the Supreme Court ordered the court to reconsider the case.
The case is Knowles v. Mirzayance.
Updated March 25 to correct a typographical error.
