What must a defendant show in order to succeed with an ineffective assistance of counsel claim?

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

The two prongs announced in this case are now known as the performance prong and the prejudice prong. Most cases have focused on the performance prong. The Court noted in Strickland that "[t]he proper measure of attorney performance remains simply reasonableness under prevailing professional norms." Defense counsel's performance will be considered adequate if he or she avoids conflicts of interest, serves as an advocate for the defendant's case, and brings to bear "such skill and knowledge as will render the trial a reliable adversarial testing process."

With regard to the prejudice prong, the Court stated in Strickland that "[a]ctual or constructive denial of the assistance of counsel" and "various kinds of state interference with counsel's assistance" are "legally presumed to result in prejudice." State interference of this sort can occur when the defendant is either denied counsel or provided with counsel too late. Also, if the state blocks counsel's performance to some degree or otherwise interferes with the attorney–client relationship, an ineffective assistance of counsel claim is likely to succeed. In other words, such action is prejudicial.