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.”