|
''Strickland v. Washington'', , was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that established the standard for determining when a criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel is violated by that counsel's inadequate performance.〔(Casey Scott McKay, ''Constitutional Law-the Plea-Bargaining Process-Mr. Counsel, Please Bargain Effectively for Your Client's Sixth Amendment Rights, Otherwise the Trial Court Will Be Forced to Reoffer the Plea Deal and Then Exercise Discretion in Resentencing'', 82 Miss. L.J. 731 (2013). )〕 The Court established a two-part test for an ineffective assistance of counsel claim: a criminal defendant must show that 1) counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and 2) that counsel's performance gives rise to a reasonable probability that, if counsel had performed adequately, the result would have been different. This decision was a reasonable 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. ==Background== David Washington pled guilty in a Florida trial court to an indictment that included three capital murder charges. During the plea colloquy, Washington told the trial judge that, although he had committed a string of burglaries, at the time of his criminal spree he was under extreme stress caused by his inability to support his family. The trial judge told Washington that he had "a great deal of respect for people who are willing to step forward and admit their responsibility." In preparing for the sentencing hearing, defense counsel spoke with Washington about his background, but did not seek out character witnesses or request a psychiatric examination. Counsel's decision not to present evidence concerning Washington's character and emotional state reflected his judgment that it was advisable to rely on the plea colloquy for evidence as to such matters, thus preventing the State from cross-examining Washington and from presenting psychiatric evidence of its own. Counsel did not request a presentence report because it would have included Washington's criminal history and thereby would have undermined the claim of no significant prior criminal record. Finding numerous aggravating circumstances and no mitigating circumstance, the trial judge sentenced Washington to death on each of the murder counts. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed Washington's sentences on direct appeal. Washington then sought collateral relief in state court on the ground, inter alia, that counsel had rendered ineffective assistance at the sentencing proceeding in several respects, including his failure to request a psychiatric report, to investigate and present character witnesses, and to seek a presentence report. The trial court denied relief, and the Florida Supreme Court affirmed. Washington then filed a habeas corpus petition in Federal District Court advancing numerous grounds for relief, including the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. After an evidentiary hearing, the District Court denied relief, concluding that although counsel made errors in judgment in failing to investigate mitigating evidence further than he did, no prejudice to Washington's sentence resulted from any such error in judgment. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in a three judge panel, determined that Washington had been ineffectively represented. However, the state of Florida appealed this decision and the appeal occurred during the time where the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit was statutorily created from a part of the Fifth Circuit. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit en banc, reversed the Fifth Circuit's ruling, stating that the Sixth Amendment accorded (U.S. 668, 669 ) criminal defendants a right to counsel rendering "reasonably effective assistance given the totality of the circumstances." After outlining standards for judging whether a defense counsel fulfilled the duty to investigate nonstatutory mitigating circumstances and whether counsel's errors were sufficiently prejudicial to justify reversal, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the case for application of the standards. The State of Florida 〔The Strickland referenced in the decision was the Superintendent of the Florida State Prison, where Washington was incarcerated upon his sentencing.〕 appealed the decision to the United States Supreme Court, which granted certiorari. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Strickland v. Washington」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|