Hinton v. Alabama, 134 S. Ct. 1081

Background

In 1985 three similar restaurant robberies/shootings occurred; six .38 caliber bullets were recovered and a .38 revolver from Hinton’s home was forensically linked by the State to those bullets. Hinton was charged with two murders and tried together.
The State’s case depended on firearms/toolmark evidence that the six bullets were fired from the Hinton revolver; eyewitness ID (Smotherman) also linked Hinton to one robbery.
Hinton’s trial counsel obtained only $1,000 in expert funding (believing that was the legal cap) and retained Andrew Payne, whom counsel regarded as inadequate; Payne testified for the defense but was discredited at trial and the jury convicted and recommended death.
Postconviction, three qualified forensic experts examined the evidence and testified they could not conclude the bullets were fired from Hinton’s revolver; the State did not rebut at that hearing.
Alabama courts disagreed over whether counsel was ineffective for failing to seek additional funding (the trial judge had invited requests for more), and whether Payne was even qualified; the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals found no prejudice; the Alabama Supreme Court remanded to address Payne’s qualifications. Hinton petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was constitutionally deficient for failing to seek additional expert funding	Hinton: counsel mistakenly believed funding capped at $1,000 and therefore failed to seek more funding—this was not strategy but error of law and basic research	State: counsel sought an expert and obtained testimony favorable to Hinton; no clear deficiency because Payne testified the bullets did not match	Held: Counsel’s failure was deficient—he unreasonably relied on an incorrect belief about funding law and did not pursue available funds (Strickland standard)
Whether hiring Payne (given counsel’s mistake) can constitute ineffective assistance when Payne testified favorably	Hinton: Payne was inadequate and was likely to be discredited; a competent expert retained with proper funding could have created reasonable doubt	State: Payne’s testimony already supported Hinton (that bullets could not be matched); thus no prejudice shown	Held: Prejudice unresolved—Supreme Court remanded for proper Strickland prejudice analysis because the record has not been evaluated to see if a competent expert would likely have produced reasonable doubt
Whether federal habeas review requires courts to compare relative expert qualifications at trial	Hinton: needed to show counsel’s error prevented obtaining a competent rebuttal expert	State: argued trial experts were sufficient and Payne’s testimony matched defense theory	Held: Court declined to evaluate relative qualifications here; focus is on counsel’s legal error in failing to seek funds, not on substituting federal judgment about experts’ relative skills
Appropriate remedy if Strickland prejudice is shown	Hinton: new trial should follow if there is reasonable probability of different outcome	State: confidence in verdict remains due to prosecution experts and eyewitness ID	Held: Court vacated state-court judgment and remanded for determination whether counsel’s deficient performance was prejudicial under Strickland; possible new trial if prejudice shown

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishing two-part ineffective-assistance-of-counsel test)
Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (clarifying performance inquiry under Strickland)
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (noting cases where expert consultation is essential to defense strategy)
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (counsel deficient for failure to investigate records because of mistaken legal belief)
Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365 (counsel deficient for failure to conduct pretrial discovery due to mistaken beliefs)
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (recognizing problems with unreliable forensic evidence)