Strickland V Washington Case Brief

900 Words4 Pages

Throughout history the United States Supreme Court has upheld laws and even struck them down when it came to the constitutionality of a law. In the case of Strickland v Washington, the Supreme Court upheld the Sixth Amendment and said that the right to counsel means the right to competent counsel and if the attorney is not competent than the result of the trial is invalid. In the cases, starting with Powell vs. Alabama (1932), Johnson vs. Zerbst (1938), and Gideon vs. Wainwright (1963) the Supreme Court has recognized the sixth amendment right to counsel does exists. They stated that it is important for the criminal to have right to counsel to ensure that their fundament right to a fair trial is upheld. The United States Constitution guarantees …show more content…

All of these crimes happened while Strickland was on a crime spree. Afterwards, Strickland turned himself in and confessed to one of the murders. After turning himself in, Strickland was appointed legal counsel, according to invisipress. Strickland then proceeded to admit to committing the other two murders and pled guilty even after his council advised him not to. Because of the crimes he had committed he was likely to receive the death penalty. His council attempted to collect enough information on his behalf, but felt like his case was completely hopeless and gave up. Strickland’s council decided to focus his remorse for what he had done. Strickland’s council never asked for a psychiatric evaluation because he believed Strickland to be …show more content…

The Federal Trial Court had the same findings as the original Trial Court and the Florida Supreme Court, and so Strickland appealed that too. The Federal Appellate Court took the case and agreed with Strickland that his counsel was not competent in fighting his case. The Court found that Strickland had to show an actual or substantial disadvantage to establish lack of effective counsel and that should he should retire to see if he could meet that standard. The Court reversed the Lower Courts decision and the prosecutor appealed

Open Document