This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
Background and question before the Court
What each side argues
Petitioner (Kevin Wiggins)
According to Petitioner, under Strickland v. Washington, a lawyer's decision must be supported by a thorough investigation or a reasonable professional judgment.
According to Petitioner, it would be unreasonable not to present powerful mitigating evidence that could affect sentencing.
Respondent (Sewall Smith, Warden)
Source-limited. The record does not yet support a complete account.
What happened at oral argument
The case was argued before the Supreme Court at 11:03 a.m.
Justice Souter asked if there is any evidence that defense counsel interviewed the defendant about his background.
Justice Breyer asked for an explanation of a bifurcated sentencing hearing.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 35d98fca5e7a2afed4ac-r1-c159ee051f059e93.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 20, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.