Skip to main content

US Supreme Court Docket

Supreme Court Docket

Oct | Nov | Dec | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | Unscheduled | Previous Terms

[Download January 8, 2007 Argument Calendar PDF]
[Download February Argument Calendar - Coming Soon]
[Click here for 2005 Docket]
Many documents listed on this page are PDF files that may be viewed using AdobeReader.

Schriro v. Landrigan
No. 05-1575
    Dora B. Schriro, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections v. Jeffrey Timothy Landrigan, aka Billy Patrick Wayne Hill


    Capital Cases, Capital Sentencing, Mitigation, Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
    Respondent Jeffrey Landrigan actively thwarted his attorney's efforts to develop and present mitigation evidence in his capital sentencing proceeding. Landrigan told the trial judge that he did not want his attorney to present any mitigation evidence, including proposed testimony from witnesses whom his attorney had subpoenaed to testify. On post-conviction review, the state court rejected as frivolous an ineffective assistance of counsel claim in which Landrigan asserted that if counsel had raised the issue of Landrigan's alleged genetic predisposition to violence, he would have cooperated in presenting that type of mitigating evidence.

  1. In light of the highly deferential standard of review required in this case pursuant to the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"), did the Ninth Circuit err by holding that the state court unreasonably determined the facts when it found that Landrigan "instructed his attorney not to present any mitigating evidence at the sentencing hearing"?

  2. Did the Ninth Circuit err by finding that the state court's analysis of Landrigan's ineffective assistance of counsel claim was objectively unreasonable under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), notwithstanding the absence of any contrary authority from this Court in cases in which (a) the defendant waives presentation of mitigation and impedes counsels attempts to do so, or (b) the evidence the defendant subsequently claims should have been presented is not mitigating?


  • Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket

    Parties Counsel of Record

For Petitioner Dora B. Schriro:

Kent E. Cattani
Office of the Attorney General
Capital Litigation Section
Phoenix, AZ
For Respondent Landrigan:
Dale A. Baich
Office of the Federal Public Defender
Capital Habeas Unit
Phoenix, AZ


Oct | Nov | Dec | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | Unscheduled | Previous Terms


To view PDF files listed on this page you will need Adobe Acrobat Reader

Copied to clipboard