## Facts

- Neil Morrison, a New Jersey state prisoner, was convicted of rape after a bench trial.
- A police officer testified that, a few hours after the rape, she accompanied the victim to Morrison’s apartment, entered after being admitted by another tenant, and seized a bedsheet from Morrison’s bed.
- Defense counsel conducted no pretrial discovery and first learned of the seizure when trial began.
- Counsel made an oral motion to suppress the bedsheet as warrantless evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
- The trial court denied the suppression motion as untimely under state rules and rejected counsel’s explanations for the delay.
- After the conviction was affirmed on direct appeal and state post-conviction relief was denied, Morrison sought federal habeas relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel.
- The federal district court granted habeas relief on ineffective-assistance grounds; the Third Circuit held Stone v. Powell did not bar the Sixth Amendment claim and remanded for findings on Strickland prejudice.

## Issues

1. Whether Stone v. Powell’s limitation on federal habeas review of Fourth Amendment exclusionary-rule claims bars habeas review of a Sixth Amendment ineffective-assistance claim based on counsel’s mishandling of a Fourth Amendment suppression issue.
2. Whether counsel’s failure to conduct discovery and timely litigate suppression constituted deficient performance under Strickland v. Washington.
3. Whether Morrison could show Strickland prejudice, including whether a timely suppression motion likely would have succeeded and affected the verdict.

## Decision

- The Court held that Stone v. Powell does not bar federal habeas review of Sixth Amendment ineffective-assistance claims, even when the alleged attorney error concerns a Fourth Amendment suppression question.
- The Court agreed that counsel’s failure to conduct any discovery and to file a timely suppression motion was objectively unreasonable under Strickland.
- The Court affirmed the Third Circuit’s disposition and remanded for a full determination of prejudice under Strickland.

## Legal Principles

- Stone v. Powell limits federal habeas review of Fourth Amendment exclusionary-rule claims when the state provided an opportunity for full and fair litigation, but that limitation does not extend to independent Sixth Amendment ineffective-assistance claims.
- Fourth Amendment exclusionary-rule claims and Sixth Amendment ineffective-assistance claims protect different interests; the latter focuses on trial fairness and reliability of the conviction.
- Strickland requires (1) deficient performance measured by objective reasonableness and (2) prejudice shown by a reasonable probability of a different result absent counsel’s errors.
- When ineffective assistance is premised on failure to litigate suppression, prejudice generally depends on whether suppression likely would have been granted and whether exclusion of the evidence would have undermined confidence in the outcome.
- Competent representation includes basic pretrial investigation and timely assertion of suppression issues when warranted.

## Conclusion

The Court ruled that federal habeas courts may consider Sixth Amendment ineffective-assistance claims even if the alleged incompetence relates to a Fourth Amendment suppression issue, and it applied Strickland to find deficient performance while requiring further proceedings to determine prejudice.


Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365 (1986)