skip navigation
search

HARRINGTON v. RICHTER ( No. 09-587 )
578 F. 3d 944, reversed and remanded.
Syllabus

Opinion
[Kennedy]
Concurrence
[Ginsburg]
HTML version
PDF version
HTML version
PDF version
HTML version
PDF version

562 U. S. ____ (2011)

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

KELLY HARRINGTON, WARDEN, PETITIONER v.<linebreak> JOSHUA RICHTER

on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit


[January 19, 2011]

     Justice Ginsburg , concurring in the judgment.

     In failing even to consult blood experts in preparation for the murder trial, Richter’s counsel, I agree with the Court of Appeals, “was not functioning as the ‘counsel’ guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment .” Strickland v. Washington , 466 U. S. 668, 687 (1984) . The strong force of the prosecution’s case, however, was not significantly reduced by the affidavits offered in support of Richter’s habeas petition. I would therefore not rank counsel’s lapse “so serious as to deprive [Richter] of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable.” Ibid. For that reason, I concur in the Court’s judgment.