Home › Case briefs › Criminal Procedure

Strickland v. Washington

Supreme Court of the United States · 1984 · Criminal Procedure

Criminal ProcedureSixth Amendmentineffective assistance of counseltwo-prong testdeficient performanceprejudiceSixth Amendmenteffective assistance of counsel

Facts

Respondent pleaded guilty in Florida to multiple crimes, including three capital murders, after confessing to the offenses against counsel's advice and waiving both a jury trial and an advisory sentencing jury. At sentencing, counsel chose to rely primarily on respondent's plea-colloquy statements about stress, remorse, acceptance of responsibility, and lack of significant criminal history rather than seek further character or psychological evidence, a psychiatric examination, or a presentence report. The trial judge found numerous aggravating circumstances and no meaningful mitigating circumstances and imposed death sentences. In collateral proceedings, respondent argued counsel was ineffective at sentencing for inadequate investigation and presentation of mitigating evidence, but the omitted affidavits and reports largely described him as basically a good person under financial stress and did not show extreme emotional disturbance.

Issue

What standard governs a claim that a conviction or death sentence must be set aside because counsel rendered ineffective assistance under the Sixth Amendment? Under that standard, did respondent show that his lawyer's performance at capital sentencing was constitutionally deficient and prejudicial?

Rule

A convicted defendant claiming ineffective assistance of counsel must prove two things: (1) deficient performance, meaning counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms, judged with strong deference to counsel's strategic choices and from counsel's perspective at the time; and (2) prejudice, meaning a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. Strategic choices made after thorough investigation are virtually unchallengeable, and choices made after less than complete investigation are reasonable to the extent supported by reasonable professional judgment; counsel must make reasonable investigations or a reasonable decision that particular investigations are unnecessary.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Phoenix, Daniel Ortiz was convicted of armed robbery after a bench trial. In a postconviction petition, he argues his lawyer failed to object to several hearsay statements, but he offers no explanation of how the verdict would have changed if the objections had been made.

How should the court rule on Daniel's ineffective-assistance claim?

Explanation. A defendant claiming ineffective assistance must prove two components: deficient performance and prejudice. If the defendant fails to make a sufficient showing on one component, the claim fails. The court may reject the claim solely for lack of prejudice without deciding whether counsel was deficient. Because Daniel offers no basis to conclude there is a reasonable probability of a different result, the claim should be denied.