## Facts

- In February 1985, Robert J. Van Hook went to a Cincinnati bar intending to find a robbery victim.
- Van Hook met David Self, went with him to Self’s apartment, and attacked him.
- Van Hook strangled Self into unconsciousness, then killed him with a kitchen knife and mutilated the body.
- Van Hook attempted to conceal evidence, took Self’s valuables, and fled.
- Van Hook was located in Florida about six weeks later and confessed.
- Ohio charged Van Hook with aggravated murder (with a capital specification) and aggravated robbery.
- Van Hook waived a jury; a three-judge panel found him guilty and imposed a death sentence after a mitigation hearing where the defense presented eight witnesses and an unsworn statement by Van Hook.
- After unsuccessful direct and state postconviction review, Van Hook sought federal habeas relief; the district court denied relief, but the Sixth Circuit granted relief based on alleged ineffective assistance at sentencing, relying heavily on the 2003 ABA death-penalty counsel guidelines.

## Issues

1. Whether the Sixth Circuit erred by treating the 2003 ABA death-penalty guidelines as controlling “prevailing professional norms” for evaluating counsel’s performance at a 1985 capital sentencing under Strickland.
2. Whether Van Hook’s trial counsel performed deficiently in investigating and presenting mitigating evidence at the penalty phase.
3. Whether any asserted deficiency created a reasonable probability of a different sentencing outcome.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Sixth Circuit and denied habeas relief.
- The Court held the Sixth Circuit erred by using the 2003 ABA Guidelines as if they were binding requirements for a 1985 trial.
- The Court concluded counsel’s mitigation investigation and presentation were within the range of professionally reasonable performance under Strickland.
- The Court further concluded Van Hook failed to show Strickland prejudice given the aggravating circumstances and the mitigation already presented.
- Justice Alito, joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas, concurred to stress that ABA guidelines have no special constitutional status and should not be treated as authoritative standards of effective assistance.

## Legal Principles

- Ineffective-assistance claims are governed by Strickland v. Washington: (1) deficient performance measured against an objective standard of reasonableness, and (2) prejudice, requiring a reasonable probability of a different result absent the errors.
- Reasonableness is assessed in light of professional norms at the time of representation; later-issued standards cannot be applied retroactively as the benchmark for constitutional adequacy.
- Professional guidelines (including ABA standards) may inform the analysis but are not controlling rules and cannot be treated as mandatory commands.
- Strickland does not require defense counsel to pursue every conceivable mitigating lead; strategic limits on investigation may be reasonable when counsel has conducted substantial inquiry.
- In capital sentencing, prejudice requires a credible showing that additional mitigation would likely have altered the sentencer’s weighing of aggravation and mitigation.

## Conclusion

The Court held that Van Hook’s attorneys provided constitutionally adequate representation at the penalty phase and that the Sixth Circuit improperly elevated later ABA guidelines into decisive standards for evaluating counsel’s 1985 performance; because neither deficient performance nor prejudice was shown under Strickland, federal habeas relief was unwarranted.


Bobby v. Van Hook, 558 U.S. 4 (2009)