holding that judge may testify regarding "personal knowledge of historical facts or expert opinion[,]” but "may not.be asked to testify about his mental processes in reaching a judicial decision”
How later courts described this case
- holding that judge may testify regarding "personal knowledge of historical facts or expert opinion[,]” but "may not.be asked to testify about his mental processes in reaching a judicial decision”
- violation of constitutional right to counsel during sentencing phase is harmless if state shows in context of all evidence that "it remains certain beyond a reasonable doubt that the outcome of the proceedings would not have been altered but for the ineffectiveness of counsel."
- the presumption of attorney competence could be rebutted “when trial counsel testifies credibly at an evidentiary hearing that his choice was not strategic”
- “a strategy chosen after full investigation is entitled to almost automatic approval by the courts, a strategy chosen after partial investigation must be scrutinized more closely”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
THOMAS A. CLARK, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur in Judge Tjoflat’s opinion except for the remand instructions. I would ask the district court to conditionally grant the writ subject to the state court holding an evidentiary hearing to permit introduction of Washington’s mitigating circumstances evidence. The state court should determine, not a federal court, whether such evidence tilts the scales to a life sentence. The only problem with this case is that no Florida court has heard and considered the evidence. The affidavits were not a substitute for evidence and were filed for the purpose of securing a hearing. A hearing by a Florida court would bring this case to a speedy conclusion.