Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

558 U.S. 4

Bobby v. Van Hook

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided November 9, 2009

Supreme Court of the United States · decided 2009-11-09

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“I join the Court’s per curiam opinion but emphasize my understanding that the opinion in no way suggests that the American Bar Association’s Guidelines for the Appointment and Performance of Defense Counsel in Death Penalty Cases (rev. ed. 2003) (2003 Guidelines or ABA Guidelines) have special relevance in determining whether an attorney’s performance meets the standard required by the Sixth Amendment. The ABA is a venerable organization with a history of service to the bar, but it is, after all, a private group with limited membership. The views of the association’s members, not to mention the views of the members of the advisory committee that formulated the 2003 Guidelines, do not necessarily reflect the views of the American bar as a whole. It is the responsibility of the courts to determine the nature of the work that a defense attorney must do in a capital case in order to meet the obligations imposed by the Constitution, and I see no reason why the ABA Guidelines should be given a privileged position in making that determination.”

quoted by 3 later decisions, including Hooks v. Workman, Commonwealth v. Spotz

“Guidelines for the Appointment and Performance of Defense Counsel in Death Penalty Cases,”

quoted by 1 later decision, including State v. Froman

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Reversed and remanded · 9–0 · Decided 2009-11-09

How this case has been cited

Cited by 584 later decisions (7 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2025 · most notably Padilla v. Kentucky (2010), Harrington v. Richter (2011)

241 federal appellate · 14 district · 143 state decisions — followed in 19 states

5320200920102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Justice Alito,

¶1concurring.

¶2I join the Court’s per curiam opinion but emphasize my understanding that the opinion in no way suggests that the American Bar Association’s Guidelines for the Appointment and Performance of Defense Counsel in Death Penalty Cases (rev. ed. 2003) (2003 Guidelines or ABA Guidelines) have spe*14cial relevance in determining whether an attorney’s performance meets the standard required by the Sixth Amendment. The ABA is a venerable organization with a history of service to the bar, but it is, after all, a private group with limited membership. The views of the association’s members, not to mention the views of the members of the advisory committee that formulated the 2003 Guidelines, do not necessarily reflect the views of the American bar as a whole. It is the responsibility of the courts to determine the nature of the work that a defense attorney must do in a capital case in order to meet the obligations imposed by the Constitution, and I see no reason why the ABA Guidelines should be given a privileged position in making that determination.

/558/us/4 · .json · Public domain