Heading: - Strickland v. Washington 466 US 668 (1984) II. Facts & Procedural History - In September 1976, during the course of ten days, the respondent, Strickland, planned and committed three groups of crimes, including three brutal stabbing murders, torture, kidnapping, severe assaults, attempted murders, attempted extortion, and theft. His two accomplices were arrested, and the respondent surrendered to police. He provided a voluntary statement and confessed to the third murder. He was indicted by the State of Florida for kidnapping and murder and was appointed an experienced criminal attorney to represent him. As he was pursing pretrial motions and discovery for the respondent’s defense, the attorney learned he confessed to the first …show more content…
He also spoke on the phone with respondent’s wife and mother. He attempted once, unsuccessfully to meet with them; however, he did not follow up a second time. Additionally, the counsel did not seek out additional character witnesses for respondent. The counsel’s conversations with his client led him to believe he did not need to request a psychiatric examination because he did not believe the respondent had psychological problems. In a state of hopelessness, the counsel decided not to present nor look for further evidence concerning respondent’s character and emotional state, because he believed it would not overcome the evidentiary effect of the respondent’s confessions to the crimes. The counselor also judged that he should rely on the plea colloquy for evidence about respondent’s background and his claim of emotional stress. The counselor believed the plea colloquy provided sufficient information to the Court about these subjects. He also believed that by not introducing new evidence on these subjects, he prevented the State from cross-examining the respondent on his claim and from introducing its own psychiatric evidence. He also was successful in excluding other damaging evidence from the sentencing hearing, including the introduction of the respondent’s criminal history. He also judged that a pre-sentence report would likely be more damaging than helpful because it …show more content…
The respondent then sought collateral relief in the state court on numerous grounds, specifically among them was his assertion that counsel had rendered ineffective assistance at the sentencing proceeding. The respondent challenged his counsel’s assistance in six respects. He claimed that counsel was ineffective because he failed to move for a continuance to prepare for sentencing, failed to request a psychiatric report, failed to investigate and present character witnesses, failed to seek a pre-sentence investigation report, failed to present meaningful arguments to the sentencing judge, and failed to investigate the medical examiner’s reports or cross-examine the medical experts. The respondent then filed a habeas corpus petition in Federal District Court seeking relief on numerous grounds, including the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The District Court denied relief and found that the counsel made judgment errors in failing to further investigate mitigating evidence, but the respondent 's sentence did not result from any prejudice from any of the counsel’s judgment errors. However, the Court of Appeals reversed, ruling that the Sixth Amendment provided criminal defendants with a right to counsel who provides "reasonably effective assistance given the totality of the circumstances." The Court of Appeals outlined the standards for judging whether a defense
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
Application: In the case of Betts v. Brady, Betts was brought to trial on robbery charges and, like Gideon, could not afford an attorney and was refused to be provided with one. He, too, was forced to represent himself and found guilty. While serving his sentence, the Betts filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, with the circuit court, claiming he had been deprived the right to assistance of counsel, guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. His initial petition was rejected, and then he filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus with the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals of Maryland, again asserting he was denied his Fourteenth Amendment constitutional right to be represented by
Prior to the case of Gideon v. Wainwright, defendant Clarence Earl Gideon was charged with breaking and entering in the state of Florida. This crime is a felony according to Florida state law. Unable to pay for defense counsel, Gideon requested that the court grant him one for free. The court denied Gideon his request of being granted defense counsel. The court stated, “Under the laws of the State of Florida, the only time the Court can appoint Counsel to represent a Defendant is when that person charged with a capital offense.”
1. According to the case law of Illinois v Allen, the US supreme court held that “trial judges confronted with disruptive, contumacious, and stubbornly defiant defendant must be given sufficient discretion to meet the circumstances of each case. The court further observed that at least three constitutionally acceptable avenues exist for dealing with a defiant defendant, in the case of Ms. Roberts she was a very defiant defendant. The avenues are 1.
Mr. Johnston tried to evade the crime scene and struck the officer during the process. Mr. Johnston was connected to a sting of church burglaries. Mr. Johnston was arrested with possession of drugs and a knife. The court’s purpose of the forensic evaluation is to determine if Mr. Johnston is competent to stand trial; intellectual status, and risk. This evaluation will start with assessing his psychological behavior through a clinical interview and mental status evaluation to shape the diagnostic impression.
As an observer, it has been noted multiple times that prosecutors seek to solve a case by any means necessary. But countless times it has been found that you also will use unreliable or faulty resources without having the proper evidence and right resources in order to make a closing statement. Your desperation to solve a case in a quick and timely matter is just proof that you will take anyone’s word before checking the validity and reliability of the first time informants often times taking note of his desperation and use this in order to seek entry way into a resolution. I stand before you today and acknowledge the weight you have on your shoulders to convict and solve a case.
The landmark Supreme Court case Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) ruled that the 6th amendment obligated federal and state government to provide an attorney to anyone who could not afford one. Gideon v Wainwright ruled in favor of public defenders to create a mechanism which limited the government’s power by having them prove their convictions beyond a reasonable doubt. Currently, the Supreme Court ruling has created enormous caseloads that many busy courts struggle to handle. As a solution to the problems of high caseloads, plea bargaining has become the primary method of closing cases. Although achieving greater efficiency for the criminal justice is necessary, overly utilizing plea bargains weakens the criminal justice as it fails to reinforce the principles established in Gideon v Wainwright by foregoing trials.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you are here because one person in this courtroom decided to take law into her own hands. The defendant, Mrs. Dominique Stephens, murdered the man that she vowed to love. This sole act by the defendant is violation of all morals and her husband’s right to live. Afterwards, she even felt guilty about this violation of justice and called the cops on herself, and she later signed a written statement stating that she is guilty of the murder of Mr. Donovan Stephens. Then the defendant later recanted this statement and said that she only killed Mr. Stephens in self defense.
He admitted to the judge that “he had not visited the crime scene, viewed the crime scene photos, or even looked at the prosecutions witness list”. The counselor had not done anything to help or defend Mr. Dexter. The attorney did not even call witness on to the stand to help his case. The landmark case Strickland v. Washington supports the violation of the Sixth Amendment because the court upheld the defendant’s conviction when his rights were violated by his attorney who did not provide enough evidence to defend him properly. Much like this case, the death penalty was on the
Criminal Justice Psychologist The psychologist is a vital asset to the criminal justice system. The psychologist can examine victims, police officials and various witnesses thus making them ethically obligated to make the right decisions and evaluations. This essay will discuss the roles of psychologist as they work within the criminal justice system. I will Identify and describe the psychologists’ roles within the criminal justice system as it pertains to the applied scientist, the basic scientist, the policy evaluator, and the advocate.
He also acknowledged that by allowing the content of a victim impact statement to influence the jury could lead them to choose the death penalty for reasons which were irrelevant to the defendant's decision to kill. This diverted attention from the facts of the crime. Justice Powell determined that by introducing the emotionally-charged opinions of family members into the case would destroy the reasoned decision-making. This is critical in capital cases. The major factor, in this case, argued if the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution protected a defendant from cruel and unusual punishment.
In the case Maples v. Thomas in 2012, Cory Maples was found guilty of murder and sentenced to death in Alabama. In 2001, he sought post-conviction relief in court. He said that his attorneys failed to give him proper representation that is guaranteed by the 6th Amendment. The 6th Amendment states, “Sixth Amendment guarantees the rights of criminal defendants, including the right to a public trial without unnecessary delay, the right to a lawyer, the right to an impartial jury, and the right to know who your accusers are and the nature of the charges and evidence against you.” Maples felt as if his attorneys were not helping him in his trial.
Was this an issue over Dr Glucksberg bringing suit in federal district court seeking a declaration that the Washington state law violated a liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The case was heard by the United States Supreme Court. 5. Ruling and Reasoning Chief Justice Rehnquist was the judge who wrote the majority opinion for the court. He reversed the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision that a ban on physician-assisted suicide symbolized
Paul, the evidence from the DA’s office, the doctors, members of the Children's Institute International (CII) and clients. He had to work together with them to defend his case. This was shown when a plea bargain was offered to Ms. MaMartin. 2. How significant was discretion with respect to the defense attorney?