Preliminary Context - Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

Question 1

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel (IAC)

Answer 1

A criminal constitutional claim where the defendant argues their lawyer was ineffective.

The lawyer is not in trouble for this. License is not on the line, nor is reputation. Common to get accused of it, but not necessarily so common to be found ineffective.

Remedy: New trial, do-over with competent atty

Question 2

Collateral Relief in State Court

Answer 2

Direct Appeal: Trial > Court of Appeals > State Supreme Court (may vary based on state)

State Postconviction: Trial > Court of Appeals > State Supreme Court (same process)

Habeas: Federal District Court > Federal Circuit Court of Appeals > SCOTUS

Question 3

Constitutional Basis for IAC Claim

Answer 3

Criminal defendants have a constitutional right to counsel. Two-prong element test:

1) My lawyer sucked
(consider all the facts and context. strong presumption that lawyer acted reasonably)

2) And it prejudiced my case
(BURDEN IS ON D TO PROVE HE WAS HARMED and that the outcome would have been different without the lawyer’s mistakes. client has 6th Amendment right to counsel. purpose of that is to ensure fair trial. error by counsel creates constitutional problem)

Question 4

Strickland

Answer 4

This case illustrates an IAC claim.

D went on crime spree and confessed to murders against counsel’s advice. Lawyer felt hopeless. Client got sentenced to death. Court said lawyer was fine.

How tough should the standard for IAC be? Tough enough that we aren’t retrying everything, but not so tough that the egregious lawyer fuckups don’t get fixed.