Reference no: EM133776450
Question 1 Do you feel most defendants receive effective assistance of counsel? If not, why not? What more should be done?
response 1 Amanda: I believe the right to counsel is meaningful because not all United States citizens are capable of defending themselves against criminal charges. It takes a lot of research to prove that the prosecution''s evidence is faulty and regain your freedom. The interpretation the Supreme Court gave in Brewer v. Williams was that a defendant would be given the right to have a court appointed attorney "at or after the time that judicial proceedings have been initiated against him, whether by formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information, or arraignment." This means at the time someone is made aware that they have a charge against them, they are able to have a court appointed attorney given to them because they are without the funds to get an attorney themselves.
The purpose of "effective assistance of counsel" is to "guarantee is to increase the fairness and likelihood of justice ultimately being reached in a criminal justice system that places private individuals and the government in an adversarial position." this is not too restrictive; this protection provides an even playing field for defendants against the charges they are being charged with by the government. There have been instances where defendants have felt their counsel was not effective and they were able to vacate the ruling and have a second trial. In order to do this, the case must meet the Strickland Test. The defense must prove that the previous attorney was deficient in their counsel and that the attorney, whether they made error or not, was so deficient that the judge would have ruled differently had the case been presented by a competent attorney. This test comes from the decision in Strickland v. Washington.
Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387 (1977), Justia Law
Effective assistance of counsel, Legal Information Institute,
Right to counsel, Legal Information Institute,
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), Justi
Response 2 Michael: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Gideon v. Wainwright1 that all defendants facing criminal prosecution are entitled to representation by an attorney to protect them from a potentially unfair trial. If the defendant cannot afford to hire an attorney, the state must provide counsel to them. In subsequent cases, beginning with McMann v. Richardson2, the Court has maintained that they "are entitled to the effective assistance of competent counsel"3 (emphasis added).
These meaningful rights have become a cornerstone of the American justice system. But, what exactly is "competent counsel"? The Court has answered that question with the establishment of a two-part test (the Strickland test): first, did the performance of counsel fall "below an objective standard of reasonableness"; and second, did the deficient performance of counsel prejudice the defense?4 An affirmative answer to these two questions would indicate and define incompetent counsel.
Whether the Strickland test is too restrictive is a matter of opinion, but I would maintain that it is. Instead of creating a standard for defense attorneys to aspire to, the Strickland test creates a minimum threshold that they must not fall below. Furthermore, even if the attorney's performance just barely satisfies the test's first question, the burden falls on the defendant to show that this minimal performance prejudiced their defense. As a result, claims of ineffective assistance usually fail, even when a reasonable person would determine that counsel was indeed ineffective. For example, the Supreme Court of the United States denied certiorari to a defendant whose counsel slept through much of the trial. In that case, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals had decided that counsel's mere presence in the trial court at all times and the inability to prove prejudice was insufficient to show that the defendant's counsel was ineffective.5 This and other cases call into question the continued validity of the Strickland test as the ultimate determinant of ineffective counsel.