562 U. S. ____ (2011)

KELLY HARRINGTON, WARDEN, PETITIONER v.<linebreak> JOSHUA RICHTER

on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit

---

---

Justice Ginsburg , concurring in the judgment.

In failing even to consult blood experts in preparation for the murder trial, Richter’s counsel, I agree with the Court of Appeals, “was not functioning as the ‘counsel’ guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment .” Strickland v. Washington , 466 U. S. 668, 687 (1984) . The strong force of the prosecution’s case, however, was not significantly reduced by the affidavits offered in support of Richter’s habeas petition. I would therefore not rank counsel’s lapse “so serious as to deprive [Richter] of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable.” Ibid. For that reason, I concur in the Court’s judgment.