The Court assumes that effective assistance of counsel is present unless the adversarial process
The Court assumes that effective assistance of counsel is present unless the adversarial process is so undermined by counsel’s conduct that the trial cannot be relied upon to have produced a just result. An accused who claims ineffective counsel must show the following: (1) deficient performance by counsel and (2) a reasonable probability that a competent attorney would have led to a different outcome (Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 [1984]). Discuss the difficulty of successfully demonstrating point number two. Please articulate WHY in your answers
Sample Solution
The second point of the Strickland v. Washington standard can be difficult to prove because it requires a defendant to show that a competent attorney would have led to a different outcome. This proof is inherently subjective and may require an accused person to rely on the opinion of experts in order to demonstrate how their case could have been handled differently by another attorney. Additionally, since counsel’s performance cannot always be reliably judged without knowing what actually happened during trial proceedings or outside defense strategy discussions, there is no way for individuals seeking relief from conviction via ineffective assistance claims to know if they are making accurate assumptions about counsel’s performance (Ginsburg & Martin, 2019). Thus, proving this part of the two-point test often rests on circumstantial evidence and speculation about outcomes which makes it difficult for defendants wishing to challenge their convictions due inadequate representation.
