October Term 2009 · Docket 08-724

Did Ohio's highest court wrongly apply federal law to deny a death row inmate's appeal?

The dispute centers on whether Ohio's highest court unreasonably applied federal standards when it denied a death row inmate's appeal.

Official caption
Smith v. Spisak
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

    General Cordray argued the state court's decision was contrary to federal precedent.

    Mr. Benza argued trial counsel presented improper aggravating factors to the jury.

    justice_stevens_questioned_which_prong_of_strickland_the_state_court_relied_on

    justice_stevens_questioned_if_the_argument_depends_on_deference_or_fresh_prejudice_analysis

    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 involves a death row inmate challenging his conviction. The core issue is whether the state court's decision violated federal law regarding ineffective assistance of counsel.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on October 13, 2009.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

the side that brought the case wants the federal court to find the state court's decision unreasonable under federal law.

the opposing side wants the federal court to uphold the state court's application of federal law.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

the side that brought the case argues the state court unreasonably applied the Strickland standard for ineffective assistance of counsel.

the opposing side argues the state court correctly applied federal law and independently reweighed sentencing factors.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Stevens asked which part of the Strickland test the state court relied upon.

Justice Stevens asked if the side that brought the case's argument depends on deference to the state court or fresh prejudice analysis.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case determines how federal courts review state court decisions on ineffective assistance of counsel claims in death penalty cases.

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