Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel
The Sixth Amendment provides that a defendant has the right to the assistance of counsel to argue on behalf of his defense. See U.S. Const. amend. VI. This right attaches when a suspect is formally charged, specifically when the individual becomes a defendant at the start of adversarial proceedings. Because the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is a prudent facet of the United States legal system, the ineffective assistance of counsel violates that Sixth Amendment right. Ineffective assistance of counsel claims primarily arises in defense quality in the context of post-conviction remedies or through possible structural deficits that may not pertain to particularized errors in litigation as an accident lawyer can share.
The test of whether the defendant experienced ineffective assistance of counsel is derived from Strickland v. Washington. In this case, the defendant planned and committed numerous serious crimes, including murder and crimes that involved serious bodily injury. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 672 (1984). The defendant was appointed counsel, which led to a variety of issues. Id. On counsel’s advice, the defendant waived his right to a jury trial. Id. His counsel also did not seek to look further for evidence of the defendant’s character and emotional state. Id. at 673. Ultimately, the trial judge sentenced the defendant to death and prison terms for the crimes. Id. 675. The defendant then sought relief based on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, to which the trial court denied relief without an evidentiary hearing because they stated the “ineffectiveness claim was meritless.” Id. at 675–676.
The issue proposed in the Supreme Court pertained to “actual ineffectiveness,” presenting this question to ensure that the defendant obtained a fair trial. Id. at 686. From this question, the Court held that a claim against counsel’s effective assistance being so defective as to require a reversal, conviction, or death sentence contains two components. Id. at 687. The defendant must first show that counsel’s performance was deficient, requiring that counsel “made errors so serious” that counsel did not perform as counsel as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. Id. The defendant must then show that this deficiency prejudiced the defense, showing that these errors were “so serious as to deprive the defendant a fair trial . . . .” Id. Both of these showings need to be present to show that representation was “below an objective standard of reasonableness.” Id. at 688. The Court ultimately held that the defendant did not show a deficiency in performance nor sufficient prejudice, stating that the defendant’s proceeding “was not fundamentally unfair.” Id. at 700.
Despite this claim of ineffective assistance of counsel being denied, this case created the test for ineffective assistance of counsel. Ultimately, the Court created the following two-prong test: 1) the attorney’s representation fell outside of the range of professionally competent assistance, and 2) the attorney’s errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable. This standard is very difficult to obtain, as there is a strong presumption that the attorney’s representation is within the wide range of professionally competent assistance. Essentially, the defendant is tasked with showing that there is a reasonable probability that the proceeding would have been different had it not been for the attorney’s unprofessional errors. However, suppose a defendant can meet both prongs created in Strickland. In that case, there is a possibility that a court will determine that a person’s Sixth Amendment rights were violated through counsel’s ineffectiveness. If you have questions about this, you should contact an attorney near you for more information.
Thanks to Eglet Adams for their insight on ineffective assistance of counsel.