Summary of Strickland v. Washington 466 U.S. 668 (1984)

CASE: This was a review of a reversal of a death sentence.

FACTS: Strickland (D) was charged with murder, robbery, kidnapping, torture, and various other felonies. D pleaded guilty against his counsel’s advice, waived a jury trial and sentencing, and chose to be sentenced by the judge. Counsel decided not to present evidence of D’s mental state because he believed that the prosecution would be able to impeach any such evidence. D was sentenced to death. D sought habeas corpus claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed. A U.S. district court denied habeas corpus, but the court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

ISSUE: Must a claim that counsel was ineffective rise to the level that it would be viewed as a denial of the right to counsel?

RULE OF LAW: A claim that counsel was ineffective must rise to the level that it would be viewed as a denial of the right to counsel.

HOLDING AND DECISION: (O’Connor, J.) Must a claim that counsel was ineffective rise to the level that it would be viewed as a denial of the right to counsel? Yes. A claim that counsel was ineffective must rise to the level that it would be viewed as a denial of the right to counsel. A defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that but for the counsel’s unprofessional error, the result of the proceeding would have been different. The court must consider the totality of the evidence before the judge or jury. The conduct of D’s counsel cannot be found to be unreasonable. Counsel chose to rely on D’s acceptance of responsibility for his crime. Counsel’s tactical decision not to present mental state evidence was, if not the best decision, a legitimate one in light of the situation at the time. Even if it was in error it would not have prejudiced D’s position. Counsel’s actions were within the range of professionally competent assistance. Reversed.

LEGAL ANALYSIS: A failure to show deficient performance or sufficient prejudice will defeat an ineffectiveness of counsel charge. Have to show that result would have been different because the presumption is that the attorney is competent. The high standard keeps frivolous claims out of the court. The practice of law is all about strategies, and different attorneys will make different choices under similar circumstances. AS LONG AS THE ATTORNEY CAN ARTICULATE THAT HE LOOKED AT ALL THE EVIDENCE, FACTS, AND THE LAW AND THEN MADE A DECISION HE IS SAFE. The totality of the circumstances will be used to determine the issue one way or another.