Canales v. Lumpkin

Summary

The Court denied certiorari without explaining its reasons or resolving the merits. Justice Sotomayor dissented, with no other Justice joining, and would have summarily reversed. She concluded that counsel’s failure to investigate and present extensive mitigating evidence created a reasonable probability that at least one juror would have chosen life imprisonment rather than death. She criticized the Fifth Circuit’s comparison of Canales’ evidence with prior cases instead of an individualized reweighing of all mitigating and aggravating evidence. She also concluded that Texas had waived or forfeited its objection to considering evidence developed in federal habeas proceedings.