October Term 2004 · Docket 04-5462

Did trial counsel fail to investigate a defendant's life history?

A death row inmate claims his lawyer ignored key records. The state says the lawyer acted reasonably.

Official caption
Rompilla v. Beard
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

    Nolas argued counsel failed to secure any life history documents.

    Lovitt argued the investigation showed records contained nothing useful.

    Scalia questioned whether experts would naturally discuss childhood problems.

    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

This case tests the standard for ineffective assistance of counsel in capital cases. It asks if a lawyer must dig deeper when initial records look empty.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on January 18, 2005.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Rompilla wants a new trial based on ineffective counsel.

Beard wants the death sentence to stand.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Rompilla argues his lawyer ignored available life history records.

Beard argues the lawyer's investigation was objectively reasonable.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice O'Connor asked about the number of relatives who testified.

Justice Scalia questioned the intent behind using expert witnesses.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This dispute defines the duty of lawyers in death penalty cases. It sets the bar for investigating a defendant's past. The outcome shapes future capital sentencing procedures nationwide.

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