Performance Standard

Front 1

Under the STRICKLAND test, what does D have to show to prove ineffective assistance of counsel

Back 1

1. Counsel's performance was deficient
2. Counsel's performance was prejudicial

Front 2

What are the criteria for showing counsel's performance was deficient?

Back 2

Show that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as a "counsel" guaranteed by 6A--with performance measured against objective standard of reasonableness

Front 3

What are the criteria for showing counsel's performance was prejudicial?

Back 3

Show that but for counsel's errors, there is a reasonable probability that the result of the proceeding would have been different, with reasonable probability meaning one that undermines confidence in the outcome.

Front 4

Standard for STRICKLAND analysis?

Back 4

Judge assesses both factors in light of the totality of the evidence, looking at not just atty actions but also actions of judge and defendant. Also, limited to judging atty based on information atty had at the time actions were taken.

Front 5

What about STRICKLAND dissent?

Back 5

Dissent argued that scope of STRICKLAND analysis should be limited to atty's direct actions only, and not take into account actions of others

Front 6

D argues that lawyer behaved incompetently, but D would have been convicted regardless--violation?

Back 6

No--D has shown deficient performance, but not prejudice

(STRICKLAND dissent thinks that in this situation, D should get relief).

Front 7

D argues that lawyer made reasonable/only slightly negligent mistake, but it cost the case--violation?

Back 7

No--D has shown prejudicial effect of actions, but not that lawyer's actions constituted deficient performance.

Front 8

What about creating checklist of things that lawyers should do?

Back 8

STRICKLAND rejects this, opts for reasonableness std instead.

Front 9

When might the court presume prejudice?

Back 9

--D provided no counsel at all
--Atty has conflict of interest

Front 10

How is STRICKLAND analysis flexible?

Back 10

--Focus on fundamental fairness may affect analysis
--May be situations where the simple likelihood of a different outcome could not be justly characterized as prejudicial
--Mere difference in outcome may not be enough to establish prejudice

Front 11

How might ROMPILLA set a lower standard?

Back 11

In ROMPILLA, atty did more than atty in STRICKLAND, yet in ROMPILLA court found violation, and in STRICKLAND court did not. Difference was that atty's failures likely had larger prejudicial effect in ROMPILLA than in STRICKLAND. This suggests that the court might weigh prejudicial effect heavily.

Front 12

How does LOCKHART apply STRICKLAND to plea contexts?

Back 12

--Performance: show counsel deficiency, such as failure in duty to investigate, and must show more than simple error, something like lack of good faith or lack of dilligence
--Prejudice: show that counsel's errors affect outcome of the bargain process, asking whether but for counsel's errors, D would not have pleaded guilty and instead gone to trial

Front 13

Problem with applying STRICKLAND to LOCKHART?

Back 13

Within bargaining context, anything defense counsel does or doesn't do affects outcome, so standard for prejudice has to be higher than normally under STRICKLAND

Front 14

Policy concerns in applying STRICKLAND to plea bargains?

Back 14

Due to lack of public resources, there has been greater burden placed on public defenders, leading to more claims of ineffective counsel based on lack of resources; court have generally not allowed these claims, however.