An analysis of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim in the strickland v washington case

In too many cases defendants retain or are burdened with attorneys who lack the time, experience, or professional responsibility to zealously represent their clients.

An analysis of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim in the strickland v washington case

May 14, Respondent pleaded guilty in a Florida trial court to an indictment that included three capital murder charges. In the plea colloquy, respondent told the trial judge that, although he had committed a string of burglaries, he had no significant prior criminal record and that at the time of his criminal spree he was under extreme stress caused by his inability to support his family.

The trial judge told respondent that he had "a great deal of respect for people who are willing to step forward and admit their responsibility. Finding numerous aggravating circumstances and no mitigating circumstance, the trial judge sentenced respondent to death on each of the murder counts.

The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, and respondent then sought collateral relief in state court on the ground, inter alia, that counsel had rendered ineffective assistance at the sentencing proceeding in several respects, including his failure to request a psychiatric report, to investigate and present character witnesses, and to seek a presentence report.

The trial court denied relief, and the Florida Supreme Court affirmed.

Washington, U.S. (), is the seminal U.S. Supreme Court case addressing what factors a defendant must prove to make a lawful ineffective assistance of counsel claim for habeas corpus review of a state court decision. appellate counsel are satisfied in this case. We must next conduct the second-tier analysis of the ineffective assistance of counsel claim applying the principles set out in Strickland v. A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel invokes the analysis set forth in Strickland v. Washington, U.S. , webkandii.com , 80 webkandii.com2d (). To find success, a defendant must demonstrate both that (1) counsel's representation was deficient; and (2) this deficiency was prejudicial.

Respondent then filed a habeas corpus petition in Federal District Court advancing numerous grounds for relief, including the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. A court hearing an ineffectiveness claim must consider the totality of the evidence before the judge or jury.

A number of practical considerations are important for the application of the standards set forth above. The standards do not establish mechanical rules; the ultimate focus of inquiry must be on the fundamental fairness of the proceeding whose result is being challenged.

If it is easier to dispose of an ineffectiveness claim on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice, that course should be followed. The principles governing ineffectiveness claims apply in federal collateral proceedings as they do on direct appeal or in motions for a new trial.

And in a federal habeas challenge to a state criminal judgment, a state court conclusion that counsel rendered effective assistance is not a finding of fact binding on the federal court to the extent stated by 28 U.

Snurkowski, Assistant Attorney General of Florida, argued the cause for petitioners.

A Cumulative Approach to Ineffective Assistance « webkandii.com

Fox, Assistant Attorney General. Shapiro argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Joseph H.

An analysis of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim in the strickland v washington case

Kneedler; for the State of Alabama et al. Kamenar, and Nicholas E. I A During a day period in Septemberrespondent planned and committed three groups of crimes, which included [ U. After his two accomplices were arrested, respondent surrendered to police and voluntarily gave a lengthy statement confessing to the third of the criminal episodes.

The State of Florida indicted respondent for kidnaping and murder and appointed an experienced criminal lawyer to represent him.

Counsel actively pursued pretrial motions and discovery. He cut his efforts short, however, and he experienced a sense of hopelessness about the case, when he learned that, against his specific advice, respondent had also confessed to the first two murders. By the date set for trial, respondent was subject to indictment for three counts of first-degree murder and multiple counts of robbery, kidnaping for ransom, breaking and entering and assault, attempted murder, and conspiracy to commit robbery.

He also stated, however, that he accepted responsibility for the crimes. The trial judge told respondent that he had "a great deal of respect for people who are willing to step forward and admit their responsibility" but that he was making no statement at all about his likely sentencing decision.

Counsel advised respondent to invoke his right under Florida law to an advisory jury at his capital sentencing hearing.Strickland v. Washington, U.S.

U.S. Supreme Court

(), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that established the standard for determining when a criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel is violated by that counsel's inadequate performance.. The Court, in a decision by Justice O'Connor, established a two-part test for an ineffective assistance of counsel claim: a Concur/dissent: Brennan.

Analysis As mentioned above, Roberts filed his Application asserting two theories: (1) ineffective The benchmark decision when faced with a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is the United States Supreme Court case Strickland v. Washington, U.S. (), which has been adopted by .

This case and United States v. Cronic, ante, p. , present our first occasions to elaborate the appropriate standards for judging claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. appellate counsel are satisfied in this case.

A Cumulative Approach to Ineffective Assistance « webkandii.com

We must next conduct the second-tier analysis of the ineffective assistance of counsel claim applying the principles set out in Strickland v. Strickland v. Washington, U.S. () Strickland v. the Court has never directly and fully addressed a claim of "actual ineffectiveness" of counsel's assistance in a case going to trial.

Cf. United States v. For a review of other decisions attempting to develop guidelines for assessment of ineffective assistance of counsel. Home > In Memoriam: Strickland v. Washington. In Memoriam: Strickland v.

An analysis of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim in the strickland v washington case

Washington By Scott Key on June 8th, Posted in Opinions and Analysis. While working on a brief, we discovered a Georgia Supreme Court case that I was sorry to have missed when it came out (hat tip to Margaret Flynt).

A paradigm shifted in , and I completely missed it.

Wn.2d , IN RE PERS. RESTRAINT OF CRACE