Tooby's California Post-Conviction Relief for Immigrants

It may be possible to determine from the client whether the original defense counsel conducted a thorough investigation, talked at length with the defendant to find out precisely what happened, visited the scene, interviewed eyewitnesses, etc.

            A failure to do so may be a ground to vacate the plea.  If a more thorough investigation would have turned up evidence of innocence or evidence that would likely have resulted in a shorter sentence or the granting of a motion, counsel's ineffectiveness may be ruled prejudicial, and the conviction or sentence may be set aside.

            As the Supreme Court held in Strickland v. Washington,[15] counsel must, at a minimum, conduct a reasonable investigation enabling him or her to make informed decisions about how best to represent his or her client.[16]

[15] Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 691 (1984).

[16] See also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 974 F.2d 1099, 1109 (9th Cir. 1992) (vacating conviction); United States v. Burrows, 872 F.2d 915, 918 (9th Cir. 1989) (reversing conviction for failure to investigate a mental defense); Evans v. Lewis, 855 F.2d 631, 637 (9th Cir. 1988) (holding a failure to investigate “cannot be construed as a trial tactic” where counsel did not even bother to view relevant documents that were available).