This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

D was indicted for murder. Prior to trial, his attorney explored the possibility of presenting a number of psychiatric defenses. D requested a private psychiatrist to conduct an examination of D. During this examination, D was asked by the Dr. and responded to questions regarding the rape. At no time was D informed by his Dr. that his answers would be used against him at trial or that he could remain silent and have counsel present if desired. D was convicted and at the sentencing phase of the trial, the Dr. was called to the stand; recounted the rape story and his analysis that D was a sociopathic personality. D objected. The Dr. was allowed to testify and D was sentenced to death. D appealed. D did not appeal the Dr.'s testimony. However, that issue was raised in amicus curiae through the Univ. of Va. Law School. The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed the conviction but indicated that it only reviewed errors advanced by amicus that were specifically addressed by D. The Supreme Court denied certiorari, which did not include the issue of the Dr.'s testimony. D then applied for a writ of habeas corpus in state court and then argued the wrongful admission of the Dr.'s testimony. The court researched the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel and found that D's attorney had made an informed, professional deliberation. Habeas relief was denied, and D appealed. They were denied. D then applied for federal habeas relief.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.