Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Rulings about the standard for claims that a defense lawyer's work fell below constitutional requirements. Summaries from Criminal Defense Resources™ are general education for pro per/pro se defendants and families, not legal advice.
5 rulings, newest first.
Garza v. Idaho
The Court held that when a lawyer ignores a defendant's instruction to file a notice of appeal, harm is presumed, even if the defendant signed a plea agreement that waived some appeal rights.
McCoy v. Louisiana
The Court held that a defendant has the right to insist that his lawyer not admit guilt at trial, even when the lawyer believes admitting guilt is the best way to avoid a death sentence. Violating that choice is a "structural" error that requires a new trial without any separate showing of harm.
Missouri v. Frye
The Court held that defense lawyers generally have a duty to tell their clients about formal plea offers from the prosecution that may be favorable. Failing to do so can be ineffective assistance of counsel.
State v. Spreitz
The Arizona Supreme Court held that claims of ineffective assistance of counsel should be raised in post-conviction relief proceedings (under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32), not on direct appeal. Appellate courts will not decide those claims on direct appeal.
Strickland v. Washington
The Court set a two-part test for claims that a defense lawyer was ineffective. First, the lawyer's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. Second, there is a reasonable probability the result would have been different without the lawyer's errors.
Get new rulings by email
A short, free email when we add new rulings and resources. No spam. Unsubscribe any time.