≡ Menu

Putting Strickland’s “ineffective assistance of counsel” test in its place

Appellate lawyers, this one’s for you! According to a new article in Stanford Law Review, there are 4 types of ineffective assistance of counsel claims, and Strickland‘s two-part test applies to only one (that’s right one) of them. Read this article and help our courts put Strickland in its proper place.

{ 2 comments… add one }
  • Michael Cicchini November 25, 2019, 10:45 am

    Strickland is overused, usually to the detriment of the client. When judges and prosecutors commit misconduct, for example, defense lawyers should not be attacked via Strickland for failing to correct the judge’s error or referee the prosecutor’s cheating. Rather, because judges and prosecutors have their own ethical obligations and their own constitutional duties to the defendant, their misconduct should be attacked directly. Filtering such claims through the IAC framework hurts the client — and, of course, the defense lawyer — and Strickland was never intended for such claims. You can find my article, Constraining Strickland, here: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3438665

  • Ron morgan November 22, 2023, 8:04 pm

    I’ve been conviction and the (olr) office of lawyer regulations determined that my attorney James T Runyon infective scr20:1.1, & scr20:1.3, and a unknown male DNA was found I need help!!

Leave a Comment