Hodge v. Kentucky, 568 U.S. 1056

Hodge was convicted of murder and sentenced to death after trial counsel failed to present mitigation at penalty phase.
Counsel did not investigate any potential mitigation; Commonwealth conceded deficiency.
Kentucky Supreme Court denied relief, holding mitigation could not change the result because it could not explain the crime.
Extensive mitigation evidence emerged at postconviction evidentiary hearing, detailing severe childhood abuse and resulting PTSD.
Evidence included in-utero abuse, paternal/maternal abuse, ongoing domestic violence, drug/alcohol issues, and criminal history.
Court applied Strickland prejudice standard and criticized the weighing of mitigation against aggravation; dissented that proper standard would require remand for reweighing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was trial counsel ineffective for failing to investigate/offer mitigation?	Hodge (Hodge) claims failure prejudiced defense by omitting mitigating history.	Commonwealth concedes deficiency but argues no prejudice under Strickland.	Prejudice shown; error in evaluating mitigation under proper standard.
Did the Kentucky Court misapply mitigation by requiring it to ‘explain’ the crime?	Mitigation need not explain the crime; it must permit a reasoned moral response.	Mitigation explanation is necessary to affect sentencing.	Kentucky misapplied the standard; mitigation can influence judgment without explaining the crime.
Should the court reweigh totality of mitigating evidence against aggravating factors under Strickland's prejudice?	Totality of mitigation could alter the balance and spare life.	Even with mitigation, the death sentence stands given crime’s brutality.	There is a reasonable probability that a juror would have weighed mitigation differently; remand warranted.

Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 (1978) (mitigation must consider broad aspects of defendant's character)
Smith v. Texas, 543 U.S. 37 (2004) (no nexus requirement for mitigating evidence; relevance to sentencing)
Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374 (2005) (undiscovered mitigation could undermine confidence in outcome)
Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (2003) (mitigating evidence from childhood may change sentencing)
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (ineffective assistance requires reasonable probability of different outcome)
Skipper v. South Carolina, 476 U.S. 1 (1986) (evidence of good behavior in jail can be mitigating)
Porter v. McCollum, 558 U.S. 30 (2010) (mitigation evidence weighing against aggravation in capital sentencing)
Abdul‑Kabir v. Quarterman, 550 U.S. 233 (2007) (mitigation evidence and reasoned moral response in sentencing)