What is the test used to determine "effective" assistance of counsel? Explain each prong of the test.

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

In the 1984 case of Strickland v. Washington, the Supreme Court set forth the standard to be used in evaluating ineffectiveness of counsel claims. Justice O'Connor, writing for a seven-member majority, noted that the standard for judging a claim of ineffectiveness is whether counsel's performance so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result. To determine whether this requirement was met, the Court established a two-pronged test. First, was the attorney's performance deficient and, if so, did the deficient performance injure (prejudice) the defendant? In considering the first prong, the Court held that a court must evaluate whether, "in light of all the circumstances, the identified acts or omissions were outside the wide range of professionally competent assistance." The majority went on to hold that "counsel is strongly presumed to have rendered adequate assistance and made all significant decisions in the exercise of reasonable professional judgment." It is important to note that decisions made by the attorney about strategy will not be second-guessed in hindsight. If counsel's performance is determined to have been below acceptable standards, a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel will not succeed unless it is also shown that counsel's ineffectiveness prejudiced the defendant. This prong requires proof that there is a reasonable probability that, except for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. The Court went on to explain that a reasonable probability is "a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome."