Ineffective assistance of counsel is a claim raised by a convicted criminal defendant that their attorney’s performance was so ineffective that it deprived them of the constitutional right guaranteed by the Assistance of Counsel Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Ineffective assistance of counsel, or bad lawyering, constitutes a violation of a criminal defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
In too many cases defendants retain or are burdened with attorneys who lack the time, experience, or professional responsibility to zealously represent their clients.

The resulting representation may include failures to investigate an alibi defense, investigate prosecution witnesses, enlist experts to challenge the prosecution’s physical evidence, or even attend or stay awake for hearings.

Having the benefit of counsel or assistance of counsel means that the criminal defendant has had a competent attorney representing them. Competence is defined as reasonable professional assistance and is defined in part by prevailing professional norms and standards.

The Supreme Court has held that part of the right to counsel is a right to effective assistance of counsel. Proving that their lawyer was ineffective at trial is a way for convicts to get their convictions overturned, and therefore ineffective assistance is a common heabus corpus claim. To prove ineffective assistance, a defendant must show (1) that their trial lawyer’s performance fell below an “objective standard of reasonableness” and (2) “a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).

Counsel’s Assistance May be Ineffective When He or She: Fails to investigate fully the facts and circumstances of the defendant’s case, such as when the attorney fails to find there was an alibi witnessThe Supreme Court has held that part of the right to counsel is a right to effective assistance of counsel. Proving that their lawyer was ineffective at trial is a way for convicts to get their convictions overturned, and therefore ineffective assistance is a common heabus corpus claim. To prove ineffective assistance, a defendant must show (1) that their trial lawyer’s performance fell below an “objective standard of reasonableness” and (2) “a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).

Counsel’s Assistance May be Ineffective When He or She: Fails to investigate fully the facts and circumstances of the defendant’s case, such as when the attorney fails to find there was an alibi witness
Gives the defendant bad advice about the law governing the case and, based upon that bad advice, the defendant pleads guilty to crime.
Doesn’t tell the defendant about a plea bargain offered by the state or prosecution

Anticipation from research: To prove that ineffective assistance of counsel is extremely harmful to those whom are being represented.
Ineffective counsel is a common habeas corpus claim.
Inequality gives the prosecution the resources to properly try a case but denies those same resources to the defense.
Ineffective assistance constitutes a violation of a criminal defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel. What happens if defense counsel is found ineffective?
If the defense attorney is found to have provided ineffective assistance, the court will throw out the defendant’s conviction and order a new trial. In some very rare instances, the court may dismiss the case.

Initial Research on Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: Ineffective assistance of counsel, or bad lawyering, constitutes a violation of a criminal defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel. In too many cases defendants retain or are burdened with attorneys who lack the time, experience, or professional responsibility to ardently represent their clients. The resulting representation may include failures to investigate an alibi defense, investigate prosecution witnesses, enlist experts to challenge the prosecution’s physical evidence, or even attend or stay awake for hearings.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)
The appropriate standard for ineffective assistance of counsel requires both that the defense attorney was objectively deficient and that there was a reasonable probability that a competent attorney would have led to a different outcome.
Reversed and remanded. The case should be reconsidered according to standards for judging the lawyer’s behavior outlined herein.
The majority found that the purpose of the right to effective assistance of counsel is tied to the right to a fair trial but does not extend beyond it.
Counsel cannot be ineffective unless the mistakes were so objectively serious that they violated the defendant’s right to a fair trial by causing a breakdown in the adversarial process. Ineffective assistance of counsel, or bad lawyering, constitutes a violation of a criminal defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
Contrary to popular belief, retained attorneys, not just public defenders, have been found to provide ineffective assistance of counsel.
Ineffective defense results in an unleveled playing field for the defendant and, all too often, wrongful conviction.

An Innocence Project study of the first 255 DNA exonerations showed that 81% of those cases had ineffective assistance claims denied by the courts.
Ineffective defense counsel is a relatively new concept arising from the Sixth Amendment right of a criminal defendant to “have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.”
The problems are magnified in counties where defense counsel is allotted less money than the prosecution. This inequality gives the prosecution the resources to properly try a case but denies those same resources to the defense.

How to alleviate the problem?
Enforcing a limit on areas of practice in regards to attorneys.
Creating a better prepared, and better funded, defense bar.
Legal counsel must be “licensed” now – state or federal court. Why not go the extra step for additional specialist or similar certification in cases that would imprison the defendant for life or suffer a death penalty. Maybe even an escalating series of certifications from serious crimes to major crimes to life or capital offenses?

REFERENCES
Berry, Sheila Martin. ““Bad Lawyering”.” “Bad Lawyering” How Defense Attorneys Help Convict the Innocent. Denied Magazine, 1990. Web. 12 Oct. 2015.
“Criminal Procedure–Misadvice Regarding Parole Eligibility May Constitute Ineffective Assistance of Counsel.” EBSCOhost Connection. 1 Mar. 2012. Web. 9 Oct. 2015.
“Death Penalty – Right To Counsel – Ninth Circuit Affirms That Courts Must Consider Aggravating Impact of Evidence When Evaluating Claims Of Ineefective Assistance Of Counsel. –Stanketitz V. Wong, 698 F.3D 1163 (9th Cir. 2012).” Harvard Law Review 126.7 (2013): 2139-2146. Academic Search Complete. Web. 10 Oct. 2015
HESSICK, CARISSA BRYNE. “Ineffective Assistance at Sentencing.” Boston College Law Review 50.4 (2009): 1069-1122. Academic Search Complete. Web. 1o Oct. 2015
“IDENTIFYING AND REMEDYING INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANVE OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE COUNSEL: A NEW LOOK AFTER United States V. Decoster.” Harvard Law Review 93.4 (1980): 752. Academic Search Complete. Web. 12 Oct. 2015
Lytics, Law. “”Ineffective Assistance of Counsel” in California Criminal Law.” “Ineffective Assistance of Counsel” in California Criminal Law. Shouse Law Group, A.P.C., 2015. Web. 12 Oct. 2015.

Click Order now to have a similar paper completed for you by our team of Experts.