Strickland v. Washington
1984 United States Supreme Court case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Strickland v. Washington?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), was a landmark Supreme Court case that established the standard for determining when a criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel is violated by that counsel's inadequate performance.[1]
This article needs additional citations for verification. (April 2012) |
Strickland v. Washington | |
---|---|
Argued January 10, 1984 Decided May 14, 1984 | |
Full case name | Strickland, Superintendent, Florida State Prison, v. Washington |
Citations | 466 U.S. 668 (more) 104 S. Ct. 2052; 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 |
Case history | |
Prior | Writ of habeas corpus denied by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida; reversed by the Eleventh Circuit, 693 F.2d 1243 (11th Cir. 1982); cert. granted, 462 U.S. 1105 (1983). |
Holding | |
To obtain relief because of ineffective assistance of counsel, a criminal defendant must show both that counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that counsel's deficient performance gives rise to a reasonable probability that if counsel had performed adequately, the result of the proceeding would have been different. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | O'Connor, joined by Burger, White, Blackmun, Powell, Rehnquist, Stevens |
Concur/dissent | Brennan |
Dissent | Marshall |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. amend. VI |
The Court, in a decision by Justice O'Connor, established a two-part test for an ineffective assistance of counsel claim:
- Counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.
- Counsel's performance gives rise to a reasonable probability that if counsel had performed adequately, the result would have been different.
The decision was a compromise by the majority in which the varying "tests for ineffective performance of counsel" among the federal circuits and state supreme courts were forced into a singular middle ground test. State governments are free to create a test even more favorable to an appellant.