Strickland v. Washington case brief summary
466 U.S. 668 (1984)
CASE FACTS
On review by the Supreme Court, respondent contended that his death sentence should have been overturned as the strategic decisions upon which he was advised by his attorney during the guilt and penalty phase of his trial constituted ineffective assistance of counsel, thus violating his right to counsel pursuant to U.S. Constitutional Amendment VI.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
Respondent's death sentence was affirmed as respondent's counsel's performance could not be deemed unreasonable, and even if such was the case, respondent suffered insufficient prejudice to warrant setting aside his death sentence.
Recommended Supplements for Criminal Procedure Criminal Procedure: Examples & Explanations, Sixth Edition
Emanuel Law Outline: Criminal Procedure
466 U.S. 668 (1984)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Respondent sought review of a judgment
of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit,
contending that his death sentence should have been overturned as the
strategic decisions upon which he was advised by his attorney during
his trial constituted ineffective assistance of counsel in violation
of his right to counsel pursuant to U.S. Constitutional
Amendment VI.CASE FACTS
On review by the Supreme Court, respondent contended that his death sentence should have been overturned as the strategic decisions upon which he was advised by his attorney during the guilt and penalty phase of his trial constituted ineffective assistance of counsel, thus violating his right to counsel pursuant to U.S. Constitutional Amendment VI.
DISCUSSION
- On appeal, the death sentence was affirmed. In support of its ruling, the Supreme Court held that in order to show that counsel's assistance was so defective as to require reversal of a death sentence, respondent must have shown counsel's performance was deficient, and that such deficient performance prejudiced the defense.
- In applying this standard, the Court further held that respondent's counsel's performance could not be deemed unreasonable, and even if such was the case, respondent suffered insufficient prejudice to warrant setting aside his death sentence.
- In addition, in failing to make a showing that the justice of his sentence was rendered unreliable by a breakdown in the adversary process caused by deficiencies in counsel's assistance, respondent also failed to show that his sentencing proceeding was fundamentally unfair.
CONCLUSION
Respondent's death sentence was affirmed as respondent's counsel's performance could not be deemed unreasonable, and even if such was the case, respondent suffered insufficient prejudice to warrant setting aside his death sentence.
Recommended Supplements for Criminal Procedure Criminal Procedure: Examples & Explanations, Sixth Edition
Emanuel Law Outline: Criminal Procedure
No comments:
Post a Comment