Summary

Powell v. Texas — Opinion of the Court

Moreover, even after we remanded for further consideration in light of Satterwhite, a case that was premised exclusively on the Sixth Amendment, the court failed to give any further attention to the Sixth Amendment claim. Because the evidence of future dangerousness was taken in deprivation of petitioner's right to the assistance of counsel, and because there is no basis for concluding that petitioner waived his Sixth Amendment right, we now hold that Smith and Satterwhite control and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals.
Source: Wikisource

Powell v. Texas — Opinion of the Court

Moreover, even if counsel had anticipated the Smith decision, he would only have been on notice that by raising a mental-status defense he might open the door to "use of psychological evidence by the prosecution in rebuttal." Buchanan, 483 U.S., at 425, 107 S.Ct., at 2919 (footnote omitted) . Nothing in Smith, or any other decision of this Court, suggests that a defendant opens the door to the admission of psychiatric evidence on future dangerousness by raising an insanity defense at the guilt stage of trial.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature