Legal Definitions - ineffective assistance of counsel

Ineffective assistance of counsel refers to a situation where a criminal defendant's lawyer performs so poorly that it violates the defendant's constitutional right to a fair trial. The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to legal counsel, and the Supreme Court has interpreted this to mean not just having a lawyer, but having one who provides competent and effective representation.

If a defendant can prove that their lawyer's performance was so deficient that it undermined the fairness of the trial, their conviction might be overturned. To establish ineffective assistance, a defendant generally must demonstrate two things:

• Deficient Performance: The lawyer's actions or inactions fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, meaning they were significantly worse than what a reasonably competent attorney would have done under similar circumstances.
• Prejudice: There is a reasonable probability that, if the lawyer had performed competently, the outcome of the trial or plea would have been different. In other words, the lawyer's errors were serious enough to affect the result of the case.

Here are some examples illustrating when a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel might arise:

• Example 1: Failure to Investigate Key Evidence

  A defendant is charged with a serious felony. They inform their lawyer about a potential alibi witness who could testify that the defendant was with them miles away from the crime scene at the time of the offense. However, the lawyer, without a strategic reason, fails to interview this witness, gather their contact information, or call them to testify at trial. The defendant is subsequently convicted.

  How this illustrates the term: The lawyer's failure to investigate a crucial alibi witness would likely be considered deficient performance because a reasonably competent attorney would pursue such a lead. If the alibi witness was credible and their testimony could have created reasonable doubt, there's a strong argument for prejudice, as the outcome of the trial might have been different had the witness testified.

• Example 2: Unresolved Conflict of Interest

  A lawyer represents two co-defendants accused of a joint crime. During the investigation, it becomes clear that one defendant's best defense strategy involves implicating the other defendant. Despite this obvious conflict, the lawyer continues to represent both, advising them both to remain silent and not allowing either to pursue a defense that would shift blame. Both defendants are convicted.

  How this illustrates the term: Representing clients with directly opposing interests constitutes deficient performance because the lawyer cannot provide undivided loyalty to both. The lawyer's inability to advocate fully for one defendant without harming the other creates prejudice, as a different outcome might have been possible for one or both defendants had they received independent, conflict-free counsel.

• Example 3: Failure to Object to Inadmissible Evidence

  During a criminal trial, the prosecutor repeatedly introduces highly prejudicial hearsay evidence (out-of-court statements offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted) that is clearly inadmissible under the rules of evidence. The defense attorney, either due to a lack of legal knowledge or inattention, fails to object to any of this evidence, allowing it to be considered by the jury. The defendant is convicted.

  How this illustrates the term: A reasonably competent attorney is expected to know and apply the rules of evidence, including objecting to inadmissible hearsay. The lawyer's failure to do so demonstrates deficient performance. If the inadmissible evidence was central to the prosecution's case and likely swayed the jury, its inclusion due to the lawyer's error would establish prejudice, as the trial's outcome might have been different without it.