In this case, the accused was not denied the effective assistance of counsel required by the 6 th amendment since they argued on the mitigating evidence that could save the client from death penalty. In the context of US judicial system, the issue of mitigating factor is seen to be the most important when it comes to dealing with penalty cases ( Lockett v. Ohio) . Accordingly, the US Supreme Court has tried to make death penalty to be less arbitrary by stressing on the fact that the Jury must take keen concern of the mitigating evidence before drawing up a conclusion on the death sentence. It is therefore stipulated that due to the fact that the courts should practice respect and dignity to humanity as set out in the 8 th Amendment of the US constitution ( Williams v. Taylor). The information provided as mitigating evidence should, however, be related to the character and prior history of the defendant. In the case of Penry v. Lynaugh , it is noted that the Supreme Court remanded the case in which the instructions of the Jury of Death Penalty did not consider the mitigating factors terming them as unrelated. The Supreme Court however, broadened the very context of mitigating factors to inculcate both the character and the previous behavior and mental of the defendant hence the death penalty was lifted. The accused was therefore, not denied the effective assistance since, in the first instance, the evidence against the defendant was overwhelming which helped build a strong case against him. Additionally, the respect for human dignity was given owing to the inclusion of the mitigating factors to help save the client from death penalty. Such instances were also seen between the case of Apprendi v. New Jersey where the defense counsel could not deny the fact that the defendant was indeed guilty as charged and would therefore be sentenced to death upon the understanding of the mitigating evidence brought forward by the defense counsel.
References
Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 120 S. Ct. 2348, 147 L. Ed. 2d 435 (2000).
Lockett v. Ohio , 438 U.S. 586, 98 S. Ct. 2954, 57 L. Ed. 2d 973 (1978).
Penry v. Lynaugh , 492 U.S. 302, 109 S. Ct. 2934, 106 L. Ed. 2d 256 (1989).
Williams v. Taylor , 529 U.S. 362, 120 S. Ct. 1495, 146 L. Ed. 2d 389 (2000).
Witherspoon v. Illinois , 391 U.S. 510, 88 S. Ct. 1770, 20 L. Ed. 2d 776 (1968).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
