• Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

Card Range To Study

through

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/31

Click to flip

Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;

Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;

H to show hint;

A reads text to speech;

31 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
When does choice-of-counsel violation occur?
In case of D with privately-retained counsel, violation occurs whenever D's choice of counsel is wrongfully denied; no need to show prejudice or ineffectiveness of substitute counsel.
What if client can't afford the counsel he wants?
Lawyers cannot sue to be paid legal fees out of assets forfeited to gov't, so no right to choose counsel that you can't afford
Is there a right to proceed pro se?
Yes, 6A guarantees right of defendants to proceed without a lawyer at all times.
Policy reasons against right to pro se?
Leads to a lot more convictions because pro se defendants not competent to conduct their own defense
What is standby counsel?
Court can appoint standby counsel over D's objection to help explain objections and courtroom procedures to pro se D and help address routine obstacles.
What is possible issue with standby counsel?
Once D invites or agrees to substantial participation by standby counsel, other appearances by counsel presumed to be OK with D, unless expressly objected to. Possible that if standby counsel appears too often with D, jury will start to presume that D is incompetent.
Is there an additional hearing required to assess competency to proceed pro se?
No--hearing on competency to stand trial uses as its standard competency to stand trial alone, or proceed to trial without attorney, so if court OKs D to go to trial, no need to conduct separate hearing.
STRICKLAND v WASHINGTON: Facts
D indicted in Fla, atty felt that D was so obviously guilty that he raised evidence of D's remorse instead of other defenses, D convicted and then claims ineffective assistance of counsel
STRICKLAND v WASHINGTON: Holding
No violation here:
1. Minimal judicial review to avoid interference with lawyering.
2. Benchmark is whether counsel's conduct undermine faith in trial as producing just result
3. Attys should investigate reasonably into possible lines of defense, but abandoning defenses for strategic reasons not disallowed.
4. D has to show deficient performance (here counsel's actions were strategic in nature)
5. D has to show prejudice (here D was so obviously guilty that nothing would have changed the outcome).
WILLIAMS v TAYLOR: Facts
During sentencing, atty doesn't produce evidence regarding D's bad childhood or borderline mental retardation, D claims ineffective assistance
WILLIAMS v TAYLOR: Holding
There is a violation here.
1. Atty failed in duty to make reasonably substantial investigations into defenses.
2. Actions resulted in prejudice for D.
3. STRICKLAND analysis not so mechanical
ROE v FLORES-ORTEGA: Holding
Atty under duty to consult D about possibility of appeal where:
1. Rational D would want to appeal
2. Particular D has shown interest in appealing

Atty who doesn't consult about appeal under these circumstances is depriving D or right to effective counsel
NIX v WHITESIDE: Facts
D charged with murder, atty tells D not to lie on the stand, D then convicted, and D claims ineffective assistance
NIX v WHITESIDE: Holding
Mere consequence on outcome not sufficient for STRICKLAND, has to be right kind of consequence. Look to whether conduct undermined sense of just result.
ROMPILLA v BEARD: Facts
While atty did so some investigation during sentencing phase, there was a lot more that he could have done, and D claims ineffective assistance
ROMPILLA v BEARD: Holding
There was violation, b/c atty didn't do enough investigation and ROMPILLA was prejudiced as a result.
HILL v LOCKHART: Facts
Atty doesn't tell D during bargaining that as second offender, would have to serve half of sentence before eligible for parole, D claims ineffective assistance
HILL v LOCKHART: Holding
STRICKLAND applies to plea barganing, but standard for prejudice is whether but for conduct D would have plead differently. Here atty was erroneous in informing D about parole eligibility, but D can't show that better information would have resulted in different plea.
GLASS v US
Court forces atty to represent two defendants and atty seems to be protecting one defendant's interests over another
CUYLER v SULLIVAN: Facts
Atty represents three co-Ds, one convicted and two others acquiitted; the convicted D claims ineffective assistance.
CUYLER v SULLIVAN: Holding
No violation.
1. State judge not under duty to inquire into possible risk of conflict unless there is an objection.
2. No presumption of conflict from multiple representation, D must show that it adversely affected lawyer's performance
MICKENS v TAYLOR: Facts
D claims ineffective assistance because atty had represented victim in another trial.
MICKENS v TAYLOR: Holding
No violation b/c D can't show that conflict actually affected atty's performance in a way that would have reasonably suggested different outcome a possibility, shaking confidence in result
FRCrimP Rule 44: Right to/Appointment of Counsel:

When is D entitled to counsel?
If unable to procure himself, at every stage from initial appearance through appeal, unless right waived by defendant
FRCrimP Rule 44: Right to/Appointment of Counsel:

What rules govern implementation?
Federal/local court rules govern procedure for implementation.
FRCrimP Rule 44: Right to/Appointment of Counsel:

When should inquiry into joint representation occur?
1. Joint representation happens when 2 or more Ds have been joined in case and are represented by same attys or attys from same firm

2. If court finds joint representation, must inquire into propriety, personally advise each D, and take appropriate action to protect each D.
US v SCHWARZ: Facts
2 Co-Ds are police officers jointly charged with assaulting prisoner, want to waive right to conflict-free representation to accept lawyers from same firm
US v SCWARZ: Holding
Ct denies waiver attempt:
1. Attys from same law firm represent same risk as if same atty.
2. If waiver accepted, no grounds for ineffective assistance claim unless D can show that conflict was unwaviable or decision to waive was made unvoluntarily or unintelligently
US v GONZALEZ-LOPEZ: Holding
1. For privately-retained counsel, right to choose violated whenever D's choice is wrongfully denied.
2. Violation regardless of quality of replacement lawyer's performance
3. No need to show prejudice
CAPLIN & DRYSDALE v US: Facts
Lawyers for defendants in drug ring case sue to get access to client's funds that were forfeited to government, claim that preventing their access violated 6A right to counsel
CAPLIN & DRYSDALE: Holding
Court denies access, says that while there is right to choose, no right to choose lawyer you can't afford, and no right for party to give another's property to a third party.