Rompilla v. Beard
2005 United States Supreme Court case
Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374 (2005), is a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 20, 2005. In a majority opinion authored by Justice David Souter, the Court held 5–4 that the petitioner, convicted murderer Ronald Rompilla, had received ineffective assistance of counsel due to his lawyer's failure to adequately investigate and obtain evidence that the lawyer knew the prosecution would likely use against the defendant. It therefore reversed the prior ruling to the contrary by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and overturned Rompilla's death sentence as a result. It was the third major case in five years in which the Supreme Court had invalidated a death sentence on the grounds that the defendant had received ineffective assistance of counsel. It was also one of the last cases heard by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor prior to her retirement from the Court in 2006. O'Connor joined the majority in this case, which attracted attention in part because the author of the Third Circuit decision that the Supreme Court overturned in this case was Judge Samuel Alito, who replaced O'Connor on the Supreme Court the following year.
References
External links
Text of Rompilla v.
“Rompilla v. Beard” enters the record as 2005 United States Supreme Court case. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Rompilla, Beard and United can confirm, complicate or overturn.
Why this record matters
“Rompilla v. Beard” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, Rompilla, Beard and United provides the most credible route into that argument.
Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated May 1, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q126721276. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 2005 and 2006.
The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Rompilla v. Beard”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Rompilla v. Beard primary sources, Rompilla v. Beard archive and Rompilla research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Rompilla v. Beard”?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Rompilla v. Beard” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.