Strickland v. Washington

Definition

Strickland v. Washington is a landmark Supreme Court case from 1984 that established the standard for determining whether a criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated due to ineffective assistance of counsel. This ruling introduced a two-pronged test that assesses both the performance of the attorney and whether that performance affected the outcome of the trial, linking it directly to issues of wrongful convictions and the quest for exoneration.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. The case originated when David Washington was convicted of murder, but claimed that his attorney failed to adequately represent him during the trial.
2. The Supreme Court ruled that to prove ineffective assistance of counsel, defendants must show that their lawyer's performance was deficient and that this deficiency prejudiced the outcome of their trial.
3. The ruling set a precedent that has been used in numerous cases involving claims of ineffective assistance, making it easier for wrongfully convicted individuals to challenge their convictions.
4. The two-pronged test established by Strickland requires a showing of both poor performance and a reasonable probability that the result would have been different without the attorney's errors.
5. Strickland v. Washington has become a critical component in cases where individuals seek post-conviction relief and has significantly influenced discussions about wrongful convictions in the American legal system.

Review Questions

• What is the two-pronged test established by Strickland v. Washington, and how does it apply to claims of ineffective assistance of counsel?
  • The two-pronged test from Strickland v. Washington requires that a defendant demonstrates two key elements: first, that their attorney's performance was deficient compared to an objective standard of reasonableness, and second, that this deficiency affected the outcome of the trial. This means not only showing that the lawyer made mistakes but also proving that those mistakes had a significant impact on the verdict. This framework allows courts to assess claims of ineffective assistance on both performance and outcome basis.
• Discuss how Strickland v. Washington influences the process of seeking exoneration for wrongfully convicted individuals.
  • Strickland v. Washington plays a significant role in seeking exoneration as it provides a legal pathway for defendants to challenge their convictions based on ineffective legal representation. If a person can demonstrate that their attorney failed to perform adequately and that this failure likely led to an unjust conviction, they may be able to secure post-conviction relief. This precedent helps frame discussions about accountability within the legal system and underscores the importance of competent legal counsel in ensuring fair trials.
• Evaluate the broader implications of Strickland v. Washington on the justice system, particularly regarding wrongful convictions and public trust.
  • Strickland v. Washington has broader implications for the justice system as it underscores the critical role effective legal representation plays in safeguarding defendants' rights. By allowing claims of ineffective assistance to be raised, it highlights systemic issues related to inadequate legal resources, especially for low-income defendants who may lack proper representation. This case not only aids in rectifying wrongful convictions but also serves as a reminder of the need for ongoing reform in ensuring fair access to competent counsel, which is essential for maintaining public trust in the judicial system.

Related terms

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: A legal standard used to evaluate whether a defendant's legal representation fell below an acceptable level, potentially impacting the fairness of a trial.

Sixth Amendment:

Part of the U.S. Constitution that guarantees the rights of criminal defendants, including the right to a speedy trial, an impartial jury, and legal counsel.

Exoneration: The process by which a person is declared not guilty of a crime for which they were previously convicted, often due to new evidence or legal errors.