October Term 2002 · Docket 02-311

Did counsel fail to investigate Wiggins' background?

Wiggins claims his lawyer ignored his abusive past. The state says no duty existed to dig deeper.

Official caption
Wiggins v. Smith
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Verrilli argued Strickland requires thorough investigation or judgment.

    Himmelfarb argued the Sixth Amendment imposed no such duty.

    Bair corrected the factual record regarding post-conviction comments.

    Himmelfarb noted trial counsel obtained social services records.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

Wiggins argues his lawyer ignored his abusive past. The state says no duty existed to dig deeper.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on March 24, 2003.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Wiggins seeks a new trial based on ineffective counsel.

The state seeks to keep the death sentence intact.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Wiggins argues counsel must investigate or justify limits.

The state argues no duty required background evidence.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Rehnquist asked if the case was submitted.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines lawyer duties in death penalty trials. It shapes how courts judge legal preparation. It impacts future capital sentencing standards.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON