Criminal Procedure
466 U.S. 668 (1984)
Study notes for Strickland v. Washington: professor notes, cold call prep, exam angles, and memory aids.
To prove ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show that counsel's performance was deficient and that the deficiency resulted in prejudice.
Strickland v. Washington is a seminal case that established the standard for determining ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment. The Supreme Court introduced a two-prong test requiring defendants to show that their attorney's performance was deficient and that the deficiency prejudiced their case. This ruling clarified the expectations for attorneys in capital cases and emphasized the balance between professional judgment and the rights of defendants in ensuring fair trials.
The Court's decision underscored that tactical decisions made by counsel might not constitute ineffective assistance if they fall within a broad range of reasonable professional judgments. Professors often highlight how this case not only impacts the evaluation of counsel effectiveness but also addresses a significant procedural safeguard for those facing severe criminal charges, shedding light on both defense strategy and the importance of mitigating evidence in capital sentencing scenarios.
D-P test for defense: Deficient performance + Prejudicial outcome.
| Case | Distinction |
|---|---|
| Perry v. Leeke | Perry focuses on the right to counsel in pretrial proceedings and does not delve into post-conviction standards like Strickland. |
| Roe v. Flores-Ortega | Flores-Ortega addresses the consequences of failure to file an appeal but applies the Strickland framework to evaluate counsel's performance in that specific context. |
| Bell v. Cone | Bell evaluates the application of the Strickland test in the context of counseling about plea deals, focusing more on strategic choices made during trial. |
The two-prong standard encourages attorneys to make informed strategic decisions while protecting defendants from inadequate representation that could jeopardize their rights and lives.
Critics argue that the broad scope for attorney decision-making may allow subpar legal representation to persist, undermining the integrity of the criminal justice system.
This case often appears on exams pertaining to the Sixth Amendment rights and ineffective assistance of counsel, where students are asked to analyze attorney performance against the established standard.