Ronald Rompilla Vs Jeffrey A Beard Summary

Facts of the Case Ronald Rompilla, Petitioner v. Jeffrey A. Beard was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United Stated in 2005. This case was about the death of James Scalon, whose body was discovered in a bar in Allentown, Pennsylvania. Scalon had been stabbed multiple times and was set on fire. Ronald Rompilla was indicted for murder and other related offenses, and the Commonwealth asked for the potential of the death penalty. Rompilla was found guilty on all counts during the penalty phase. The prosecution sought to prove three aggravating factors to support the death sentence: that the murder was committed in the course of another felony; that the murder was committed by acts of torture, and that Rompilla has a significant history

The post conviction court felt that trial counsel had accurately investigated the possibilities of all mitigating factors, and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the denial of relief. Rompilla went on to file a federal habeas corpus claiming inadequate representation. The District Court reversed and claimed that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court had unreasonably applied the U.S Supreme Court’s decision in Strickland v. Washington (1984). The District Court ruled that if the state had followed the case accurately, the court would have found the trial counsel ineffective because they failed to investigate that Rompilla suffered from a troubled childhood, mental illness, and alcoholism. The case ended when a divided Third Circuit Court reversed. The majority found nothing irrational in the state’s application of Strickland given the defense’s efforts to discover mitigating material, which included interviews with Rompilla and his family members, and multiple mental health experts. It was noted that the lawyers did not find any information that could be useful in any school, medical, or police records and that the lawyers would have looked through the records when their other efforts gave them reason to. Rompilla’s case was then distinguished from

A decision held that under the Sixth Amendment, the defendant’s counsel had not met the standards of reasonable competence required of a defense. Even if a defendant and their family suggested that no mitigating evidence was available, it is required to use reasonable effort in obtaining and reviewing materials that the counsel expects prosecution to use as evidence during sentencing. The reasoning behind this decision argued that Rompella’s trial counsel did not make sensible efforts to examine the files on Rompilla’s prior convictions for rape and assault. The Court stated that the counsel should have known prosecution would present those files to the jury during sentencing, and that the information on Rompilla’s prior conviction would have found mitigating evidence about his mental health, childhood, and alcoholism that could have been used for a proper