October Term 2009 · Docket 08-9156

Did the state court wrongly reject a claim that defense counsel failed to investigate mental health evidence?

Holly Wood argues his lawyers ignored mental health evidence. The state says they made a smart strategic choice.

Official caption
Wood v. Allen
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.

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

    Kerry Scanlon argued Wood's lawyers failed to investigate mental health evidence.

    He stated this failure deprived the jury of critical sentencing information.

    The state argued counsel made an intelligent decision to limit evidence.

    They claimed presenting more evidence might have hurt the defendant's case.

    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

Wood v. Allen

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 4, 2009.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Wood wants the Court to find his lawyers failed to investigate key evidence.

The state wants the Court to uphold the lower court's rejection of his claim.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Wood argues his lawyers ignored undisputed mental deficiencies during sentencing.

The state argues counsel made an intelligent decision to avoid harmful evidence.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Chief Justice Roberts asked if the state court ruled on prejudice under Strickland.

Justice Sotomayor asked if the case involves a strategic decision or performance issue.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines how courts judge lawyer performance in death penalty trials. It clarifies when failing to investigate evidence violates constitutional rights. The outcome shapes future standards for evaluating defense counsel's strategic choices.

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