Background

• Weik was convicted of murder of his former girlfriend after a dispute over their child and confessed; guilt was not contested.
• During sentencing, the State relied on burglary and torture as aggravators; defense presented three mental-health experts diagnosing schizophrenia but did not present substantial social-history mitigation.
• Defense presented only minimal social-history testimony at trial, calling Weik’s sister Amy; other mitigating social-history details were available but not presented.
• PCR revealed defense investigators had gathered extensive social-history mitigation information showing severe childhood abuse and a dysfunctional family.
• Trial counsel showed deficiencies: failure to obtain or review mitigation reports, failure to coordinate with investigators, and failure to call additional family witnesses.
• The court eventually held that the lack of readily available social-history mitigation violated the defendant’s rights, reversing PCR denial and remanding for a new sentencing hearing.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (U.S. 2003) (requirement to present substantial mitigating evidence during sentencing)
• Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374 (U.S. 2005) (counsel must conduct thorough mitigation investigation)
• Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302 (U.S. 1989) (evidence about defendant’s background relevant to culpability)
• Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 (U.S. 1982) (consideration of life-history factors part of death-penalty process)
• Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 (U.S. 1978) (mandatory consideration of defendant’s background invalid)
• Rosemond v. Catoe, 383 S.C. 320 (S.C. 2009) (capital-mitigation evidence and strategy in SC context)