PerfectCustomPapers | The Court assumes that effective assistance of counsel

The Court assumes that effective assistance of counsel

The Court assumes that effective assistance of counsel is present unless the adversarial process is so undermined by counsel’s conduct that the trial cannot be relied upon to have produced a just result. An accused who claims ineffective counsel must show the following: (1) deficient performance by counsel and (2) a reasonable probability that but for such deficiency the result of the proceeding would have been different (Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 [1984]). Discuss the difficulty of successfully demonstrating point number two.
The Supreme Court interpretation of the Sixth Amendment requires that trial juries in both federal and state criminal trials be selected from “a representative cross-section of the community.” It also guarantees trial by a jury of peers. That phrase does not mean that, say, a student facing criminal charges must have a jury of students or that female defendants must have an all-female jury. Discuss what potential problems exist in attempting to provide a defendant with a jury of persons exclusively similar to him/her. Is such an effort possible…practical? Discuss who the students would prefer to have on a jury if they found themselves to be defendants in a criminal trial.

Sample Answer

Difficulties of Demonstrating Prejudice in Ineffective Assistance Claims

The second prong of the Strickland test, prejudice, can be very challenging to prove for defendants claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. Here’s why:

Hindsight Bias: It’s difficult to isolate the impact of a lawyer’s error from the overall facts of the case. With the benefit of hindsight, it can be tempting to assume a different strategy would have led to a different outcome, even if that might not have been the case at trial.

Full Answer Section

Unknowable Alternatives: There’s no way to know for certain what would have happened if the lawyer had acted differently. The defense often needs to rely on speculation and educated guesses about the potential impact of a different strategy.
Favorable Evidence Unavailable: The lawyer’s error might have prevented the discovery of crucial evidence that could have helped the defendant. However, since the evidence wasn’t discovered, it can be difficult to demonstrate its potential impact on the outcome.
Burden of Proof: The defendant has the burden of proving prejudice by a “reasonable probability.” This is a high standard that can be difficult to meet, especially in cases where the evidence against the defendant is strong.

Challenges of Achieving a Jury of Exact Peers

While the Sixth Amendment guarantees a jury drawn from a representative cross-section of the community, striving for a jury composed entirely of the defendant’s peers presents several problems:

Impracticality: Finding jurors who perfectly mirror the defendant’s background (e.g., student, female) can be time-consuming and expensive. Jury pools are already diverse, and achieving such a narrow demographic might significantly delay trials.
Focus on Bias vs. Fairness: The goal is a fair jury, not necessarily one that’s identical to the defendant. A diverse jury brings a wider range of perspectives to the deliberation process, potentially leading to a more just outcome.
Reverse Discrimination: Focusing solely on mirroring the defendant’s background might exclude qualified jurors from other demographics. This could raise concerns about reverse discrimination.

Student Jury Preferences:

Students facing criminal charges would likely prefer a jury that:

Understands their situation: Jurors who can relate to the pressures and experiences of students might be more sympathetic.
Values fairness over harsh punishment: Students might hope for jurors who prioritize rehabilitation or restorative justice over overly punitive sentences.
Has a strong sense of right and wrong: Ultimately, students, like anyone facing charges, want a jury that will carefully consider the evidence and deliver a fair verdict based on the law.

In reality, achieving a student-only jury is highly impractical. However, students, like all defendants, are entitled to a fair and impartial jury drawn from a representative cross-section of the community.

This question has been answered.

Get Answer

No More Worries!

Paper Formatting

No Lateness!

Our Guarantees

The Court assumes that effective assistance of counsel

Sample Answer

Difficulties of Demonstrating Prejudice in Ineffective Assistance Claims

Full Answer Section

This question has been answered.

Satisfaction Guaranteed

Why Choose Us