“Ineffective assistance of counsel” is an issue raised by many criminal defendants seeking post-conviction relief. What does that really mean?
You can be disappointed in the outcome of your case and dissatisfied with your attorney’s work, but that doesn’t necessarily establish ineffective assistance of counsel – even when some obvious mistakes were made.
The two parts of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim
Under the test established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington, to successfully raise a claim of ineffective counsel upon appeal, a defendant generally must show two things:
- Deficient representation: The attorney’s performance of their role fell below an “objective standard of reasonableness” when viewed in totality. This means that the quality of their work was below the standard expected of a reasonably competent lawyer.
- Resulting prejudice: There is a reasonable probability that the end result for the defendant would have been different had the attorney not made certain errors. In general, that means the trial was unfair.
Even if an attorney’s tactics were unsuccessful, that doesn’t mean their representation was deficient. A well-reasoned strategy is still a sound choice, even if it doesn’t work out or another attorney would have taken a different approach.
The type of attorney conduct that could support a claim
Depending on the facts of the case, an attorney may be guilty of ineffective assistance of counsel could include things like:
- A failure to investigate the defendant’s alibi, interview important witnesses or properly review all of the physical or forensic evidence in the case
- Failure to file appropriate motions to suppress unlawfully obtained evidence, such as that obtained via unconstitutional searches
- Not communicating a plea offer to the defendant or advising them to accept or reject a plea based on incorrect legal information or without explaining the consequence
- Conducting the case while they are impaired due to drugs or alcohol or while suffering from a mental or physical illness that affects their judgment and competency
An attorney’s mistake must be evaluated in the context of the entire case. Failing to call a witness, for example, may be reasonable if the witness would have created additional problems for the defense. It may be deficient representation, however, if the attorney never investigated a credible witness whose testimony could have changed the outcome of the trial.
If you believe that your case suffered due to the ineffective assistance of counsel, speaking with a skilled attorney can help you better understand your options for post-conviction relief.