Ayestas v. Davis
Petition for certiorari denied on February 24, 2020
Issues: (1) Whether “prevailing professional norms” required counsel in a capital case to investigate potential mitigation evidence, including red flags for mental health and substance abuse, before the Supreme Court decided Wiggins v. Smith, Rompilla
v. Beard and Porter v.
McCollum—as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 3rd, 6th,
9th and 10th Circuits have held, in conflict with
the decision below; and (2) whether, under 18 U.S.C. § 3599(f), a reasonable attorney would regard the pursuit of services to
investigate a capital defendant’s mental health as
“sufficiently important” under Ayestas v. Davis, when it is plausible that the failure to investigate that aspect of petitioner’s background on state postconviction review could, given
substantial authority recognizing counsel’s duty to do
so, excuse the procedural default of an ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim.
SCOTUSblog Coverage
Submit Event
