Ambrose Sykes, Defendant Below, Appellant v. State of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee

Summary

The Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed the denial of Sykes’s postconviction motion, holding that although trial counsel’s investigation of mitigating evidence was objectively unreasonable, Sykes failed to show a reasonable probability that the additional mitigation would have changed his death sentence. The court also rejected or procedurally barred his claims concerning the allocution comment, Juror No. 9, the sufficiency of the evidence, the failure to retain a forensic pathology expert, and the kidnapping instruction theory. STRINE, Chief Justice, dissenting, would have found prejudice from the deficient mitigation investigation and remanded for a new penalty-phase proceeding.