What is Ineffective Assistance of Counsel?

I'm being asked about how a defendant proves ineffective assistance of trial counsel - so I'm posting the following:  

1.  In all states, this argument will be based upon the federal constitutional mandate that each defendant deserves a fair trial.  The U.S. Supreme Court opinion that connects that fair trial guarantee with how a trial lawyer does (or doesn't) do his job is found in the case of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). 

2.  If you want to know how your state's highest court has ruled regarding Strickland, then a free and easy way of roaming through the cases is to surf through Google Scholar (click on the Strickland link above) looking at cases heralding from your state (using Google Scholar advanced search). 

Here, for example, is an opinion out of Florida's Fourth District Court of Appeal (not its highest court) in Aversano v. Florida, 966 So.2d 493, 494-495 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007):

First, the defendant must show that counsel’s performance was deficient. This requires showing that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the “counsel” guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment. Second, the defendant must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. This requires showing that counsel’s errors were so serious that they deprived the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984).


With rare exceptions, ineffective assistance of counsel claims should be raised in a motion for post-conviction relief because they are generally fact-specific. See Gore v. State, 784 So. 2d 418, 438 (Fla. 2001). “Only in cases where the incompetence and ineffectiveness of counsel is apparent on the face of the record and prejudice to the defendant is obvious do appellate courts address this issue on direct appeal.” McMullen v. State, 876 So.2d 589, 590 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)(citations omitted).

Feds dipping hands into pensions 2 pay the bills: does this worry you?

You can get all the details about what’s happening today, now that the federal government is THISCLOSE to hitting the debt ceiling – which is akin to having a zero balance in your checking account, and then maxing out your credit cards – in today’s article in the Washington Post, “Treasury to tap pensions to help fund government.”

Some are calling for the feds to sell off some of that gold.  Others say that’s just stupid, to go and sell primo assets.  It would cause the price of gold to nose dive.  And, after all, just a short-term glitch. 

Seems to me that selling gold is analogous to what people do when they’re broke and there’s not enough money coming in: they go through the closets, and find things like jewelry, guns, artwork, stereos – and they sell them to get some cash. 

I remember during my divorce being really cash-strapped and selling a collectible doll for around $1000.00.  I didn’t care that much about the doll (it wasn’t one of my Madame Alexander’s) and that money was sorely needed.

I also recall a former client who owned a series of pawn shops.  She made a very, very nice living off of folk who pawned these kinds of things to get some fast cash.

Too bad that the federal government doesn’t have that pawn shop option.  Or does it?