Skip to content
Project Curia
Supreme Court decisions
No. 22-982May 30, 2024Crime and Law EnforcementReversed

The question

Whether the Ninth Circuit correctly interpreted and applied Strickland v. Washington in finding that a capital defendant was prejudiced by his counsel's performance at sentencing.

Thornell v. Jones

What the Court decided

The Court reversed the Ninth Circuit. It held that the Ninth Circuit misinterpreted and misapplied Strickland v. Washington when it found that Danny Lee Jones was prejudiced by his trial counsel's performance at his capital sentencing. The Court found that the Ninth Circuit failed to weigh the aggravating circumstances, applied a rule barring assessment of the relative strength of expert testimony, and wrongly faulted the District Court for finding Jones's mental health evidence less persuasive. Because the mitigating evidence would barely have altered the sentencing profile, it was insufficient to show a reasonable probability of a different result.

How the justices split

6-3
In favor 6Against 3
Alito
Roberts
Thomas
Gorsuch
Kavanaugh
Barrett
Sotomayor
Kagan
Jackson

The Court's opinion

Alito, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett

The Ninth Circuit departed from Strickland in at least three ways: it failed to take adequate account of the weighty aggravating circumstances, it applied a Circuit rule barring a court from assessing the relative strength of expert witness testimony, and it faulted the District Court for attaching diminished persuasive value to Jones's mental health conditions. Under Strickland, a prisoner must show a reasonable probability, meaning a substantial and not merely conceivable likelihood, of a different result, weighing the totality of both mitigating and aggravating evidence. Where aggravating factors greatly outweigh mitigating evidence, there may be no reasonable probability of a different result. The mitigating evidence Jones presented would barely have altered the sentencing profile and is insufficient to show prejudice.

Dissenting

Sotomayor, joined by Kagan

Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Kagan, disagreeing with the majority's application of Strickland to Jones's ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim.

Dissenting

Jackson, writing alone

Jackson filed a separate dissenting opinion disagreeing with the majority's disposition of Jones's claim.

How we know · 5 sourced claims
  • Alito delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett.

    Source: syllabus, lineup

  • Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, in which Kagan joined.

    Source: syllabus, lineup

  • Jackson filed a separate dissenting opinion.

    Source: syllabus, lineup

  • The Court held that the Ninth Circuit's interpretation and application of Strickland was in error.

    Source: syllabus, Held

  • The Court found the mitigating evidence Jones presented would barely have altered the sentencing profile and was insufficient to show prejudice under Strickland.

    Source: syllabus, Held

Read the opinion on supremecourt.gov