You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reasons:

This IP address has been blocked from editing Wikipedia.
This does not affect your ability to read Wikipedia pages.
Most people who see this message have done nothing wrong. Some kinds of blocks restrict editing from specific service providers or telecom companies in response to recent abuse or vandalism, and can sometimes affect other users who are unrelated to that abuse. Review the information below for assistance if you do not believe that you have done anything wrong.

The IP address or range 35.175.0.0/16 has been blocked (disabled) by ‪JJMC89‬ for the following reason(s):

The IP address that you are currently using has been blocked because it is believed to be a web host provider or colocation provider. To prevent abuse, web hosts and colocation providers may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
You will not be able to edit Wikipedia using a web host or colocation provider because it hides your IP address, much like a proxy or VPN.
We recommend that you attempt to use another connection to edit. For example, if you use a proxy or VPN to connect to the internet, turn it off when editing Wikipedia. If you edit using a mobile connection, try using a Wi-Fi connection, and vice versa. If you are using a corporate internet connection, switch to a different Wi-Fi network. If you have a Wikipedia account, please log in.
If you do not have any other way to edit Wikipedia, you will need to request an IP block exemption.

How to appeal if you are confident that your connection does not use a colocation provider's IP address:
If you are confident that you are not using a web host, you may appeal this block by adding the following text on your talk page: ((unblock|reason=Caught by a colocation web host block but this host or IP is not a web host. My IP address is _______. Place any further information here. ~~~~)). You must fill in the blank with your IP address for this block to be investigated. Your IP address can be determined here. Alternatively, if you wish to keep your IP address private you can use the unblock ticket request system. There are several reasons you might be editing using the IP address of a web host or colocation provider (such as if you are using VPN software or a business network); please use this method of appeal only if you think your IP address is in fact not a web host or colocation provider.

Administrators: The IP block exemption user right should only be applied to allow users to edit using web host in exceptional circumstances, and requests should usually be directed to the functionaries team via email. If you intend to give the IPBE user right, a CheckUser needs to take a look at the account. This can be requested most easily at SPI Quick Checkuser Requests. Unblocking an IP or IP range with this template is highly discouraged without at least contacting the blocking administrator.

This block will expire on 05:20, 2 March 2025.

Even when blocked, you will usually still be able to edit your user talk page, as well as email administrators and other editors.

For information on how to proceed, please read the FAQ for blocked users and the guideline on block appeals. The guide to appealing blocks may also be helpful.

Other useful links: Blocking policy · Help:I have been blocked
Your IP address is in a range that has been blocked on all Wikimedia Foundation wikis. The block was made by ‪Jon Kolbert‬. The reason given is Open proxy/Webhost: See the help page if you are affected .
- Start of block: 05:38, 21 February 2024
- Expiry of block: 05:38, 21 February 2029
Your current IP address is 35.175.116.192. The blocked range is 35.175.0.0/16. Please include all above details in any queries you make. If you believe you were blocked by mistake, you can find additional information and instructions in the No open proxies global policy. Otherwise, to discuss the block please post a request for review on Meta-Wiki. You could also send an email to the stewards VRT queue at stewards@wikimedia.org including all above details.

You can view and copy the source of this page:

((Use mdy dates|date=September 2023))
((more citations needed|date=April 2012))
((Infobox SCOTUS case
  |Litigants=Strickland v. Washington
  |ArgueDate=January 10
  |ArgueYear=1984
  |DecideDate=May 14
  |DecideYear=1984
  |FullName=Strickland, Superintendent, Florida State Prison, v. Washington
  |USVol=466
  |USPage=668
  |ParallelCitations=104 S. Ct. 2052; 80 [[L. Ed. 2d]] 674
  |Prior=Writ of [[habeas corpus]] denied by the [[United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida]]; reversed by the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit|Eleventh Circuit]], 693 [[F.2d]] [https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/693/1243/230453/ 1243] ([[11th Cir.]] 1982); cert. granted, ((ussc|462|1105|1983|el=no)).
  |Subsequent=
  |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.
  |Majority=O'Connor
  |JoinMajority=Burger, White, Blackmun, Powell, Rehnquist, Stevens
  |Concurrence/Dissent=Brennan
  |Dissent=Marshall
  |LawsApplied=[[Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution|U.S. Const. amend. VI]]
))
'''''Strickland v. Washington''''', 466 U.S. 668 (1984), was a [[List of landmark court decisions in the United States|landmark]] [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] case that established the standard for determining when a criminal defendant's [[Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Sixth Amendment]] right to counsel is violated by that counsel's inadequate performance.<ref name="auto">((Cite web|last=McKay|first=Casey Scott|url=http://mississippilawjournal.org/2013/04/constitutional-law-the-plea-bargaining-process-mr-counsel-please-bargain-effectively-for-your-clients-sixth-amendment-rights-otherwise-the-trial-court-will-be-forced-to-reoffer-the-plea-deal-and/|title=Mississippi Law Journal : 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|website=mississippilawjournal.org))</ref>

The Court, in a decision by [[Sandra Day O'Connor|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.

==Background==
'''David Leroy Washington''' (December 13, 1949 – July 13, 1984) 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."<ref>((Cite news|first=Neil|last=Skene|url=https://www.newspapers.com/clip/102392770/neil-skene-ruling-on-lawyers-could/|title=Ruling on lawyers could prompt more appeals by death row inmates|date=January 6, 1983|work=St. Petersburg Times|access-date=May 23, 2022|page=9B|via=Newspapers.com))</ref>

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. The 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, he was denied relief, as it was concluded 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 the decision, and the appeal occurred while 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 [466 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, it remanded the case for application of the standards.

The State of Florida((#tag:ref|The Strickland referenced in the decision was the Superintendent of the Florida State Prison, where Washington was incarcerated upon his sentencing.|group=nb)) appealed the decision to the United States Supreme Court, which granted certiorari.

==Decision==
The Supreme Court began its decision with the idea that the [[Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Sixth Amendment]] right to counsel "exists, and is needed, in order to protect the fundamental right to a fair trial." A fair trial is one in which "evidence subject to adversarial testing is presented to an impartial tribunal for resolution of issues defined in advance of the proceeding." Criminal defendants require counsel's skill and knowledge in order to be able to successfully rebuff the state's attempt to imprison or execute them. Accordingly, the Court has ruled that counsel must be appointed for criminal defendants if they cannot afford to hire their own counsel.

However, the fact that "a person who happens to be a lawyer is present at trial alongside the accused ... is not enough to satisfy the constitutional command." Counsel must play the role in the [[adversarial system]] that allows the system to produce just results. Hence, the right to counsel is the right to the ''effective assistance'' of counsel. A claim that counsel was ineffective, then, has two components, without which "it cannot be said that the conviction or death sentence resulted from a breakdown in the adversary process that renders the result unreliable:"
*Firstly, the defendant must show that counsel's performance was "deficient," such that counsel's errors were "so serious that counsel was not functioning as the 'counsel' guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment."
*Secondly, the deficient performance must be so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial.

In order to show that counsel's performance was "deficient," the defendant must show that it fell below an "objective standard of reasonableness." The legal profession is capable of maintaining standards that justify the law's presumption that counsel ordinarily serves his function in the adversary system. That includes such basic duties as assisting the defendant and showing him undivided loyalty by representing him unburdened by any conflict of interest. Counsel should advocate the defendant's case, consult with the defendant on the important decisions and keep him informed of important developments in the course of the prosecution. However, the basic duties do not serve as a "checklist" for counsel for "no particular set of detailed rules for counsel's conduct can satisfactorily take account of the variety of circumstances faced by defense counsel or the range of legitimate decisions regarding how best to represent a criminal defendant." Counsel must have "wide latitude" to make "reasonable tactical decisions" lest the requirements for constitutionally effective assistance distract counsel from "the overriding mission of vigorous advocacy of the defendant's cause." Judges who evaluate ineffective assistance claims should, in turn, be highly deferential to counsel's decisions and avoid scrutinizing them in hindsight. Harsh scrutiny would encourage the proliferation of ineffective assistance claims and "dampen the ardor and impair the independence of defense counsel."

Counsel does, however, have a duty to make "reasonable investigations, or to make a reasonable decision that makes particular investigations unnecessary." After all, strategic decisions made in light of a reasonable investigation and compared to plausible options are virtually unchallengeable. By contrast, strategic choices made after less than complete investigation are reasonable only to the extent that reasonable professional judgments justify the curtailment of counsel's investigation. The judgments may be informed by statements the defendant himself makes to counsel and the effects of previous strategic choices.

However, not all errors on counsel's part justify setting aside the judgment; rather, they must ''prejudice'' the defendant's ability to receive a fair trial. In certain circumstances, such as when the defendant has had no counsel at all or when counsel has labored under a conflict of interest, the Court will presume prejudice, but ordinarily, the defendant must show that counsel's deficient performance had an adverse effect on the defense. Since the goal is to ensure that the defendant had a fair trial, the defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. The Court outlined several crucial guidelines to consider when applying the Strickland test: most importantly, the Court found that a "mechanical" application of the test was the wrong approach.<ref name="auto"/>

A reasonable probability is one sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. When the defendant challenges his conviction, he must show that counsel's errors prevented the jury from forming a reasonable doubt as to his guilt. When he challenges a death sentence, as Washington is doing, he must show a reasonable probability that the sentencer would have balanced the aggravation and [[Mitigating factor|mitigation evidence]] differently. The assessments must be made, of course, with respect to the totality of the evidence presented at the hearing so that when the prosecution's case is weak, the defendant will more easily show prejudice.

Applying the test to Washington's case, the Court concluded that counsel did not perform deficiently and that Washington suffered no prejudice. The counsel's decision to focus on remorse and emotional distress was a reasonable strategic decision in light of the trial judge's stated views on remorse, the heinousness of Washington's crimes, and Washington's own statements to counsel. In view of those considerations, the Court could not conclude that additional mitigating evidence would have given rise to a reasonable probability that the trial judge would have sentenced Washington to life in prison rather than death.

The majority reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

===Concurring opinion===
[[William J. Brennan, Jr.|Justice Brennan]] concurred in the result because he believed that the Court's new test for ineffective assistance, particularly the prejudice prong, would not impede the presentation of [[mitigating factor|mitigating evidence]] on behalf of capital defendants:

<blockquote>Counsel's general duty to investigate ... takes on supreme importance to a defendant in the context of developing mitigating evidence to present to a judge or jury considering the sentence of death; claims of ineffective assistance in the performance of that duty should therefore be considered with commensurate care.</blockquote>

However, because Justice Brennan believed that the death penalty is in all circumstances cruel and unusual punishment, he would have vacated Washington's death sentence and remanded for further proceedings.

===Dissenting opinion===
[[Thurgood Marshall|Justice Marshall]] [[dissenting opinion|dissented]] from the majority's holding.

He objected that the Court's newly crafted test was unlikely to "improve the adjudication of Sixth Amendment claims." He considered the performance standard "so malleable that, in practice, it will either have no grip at all or will yield excessive variation in the manner in which the Sixth Amendment is interpreted and applied by different courts." What does "reasonable" mean? Should counsel's performance be judged by reference to a reasonable ''paid'' attorney or a reasonable ''appointed'' one? After all, Marshall pointed out, "a person of means, by selecting a lawyer and paying him enough to ensure he prepares thoroughly, usually can obtain better representation than that available to an indigent defendant, who must rely on appointed counsel, who, in turn, has limited time and resources to devote to a given case." Marshall also disputed that counsel's performance must be given especially wide latitude, since "much of the work involved in preparing for trial, applying for bail, conferring with one's client, making timely objections to significant, arguably erroneous rulings of the trial judge, and filing a notice of appeal if there are colorable grounds therefor could profitably be made the subject of uniform standards."

Marshall also disputed that it should be made the defendant's burden to show prejudice from an allegedly incompetent attorney's performance. Prejudice cannot be measured solely with respect to the fairness of the ''outcome'' of the trial; the fairness of the ''procedure'' matters just as much. "The majority contends that the Sixth Amendment is not violated when a manifestly guilty defendant is convicted after a trial in which he was represented by a manifestly ineffective attorney. I cannot agree."

Marshall worried that the Court's admonition to future judges, presented with ineffective assistance claims should defer to counsel's strategic judgments, placed too heavy a burden on defendants making such claims.

Finally, Marshall took issue with the Court's conclusion that the same standard for ineffectiveness should apply in a capital sentencing proceeding as applies at an ordinary trial. The capital sentencing process is intended to be especially reliable, and "reliability in the imposition of the death sentence can be approximated only if the sentencer is fully informed of all possible relevant information about the individual defendant whose fate it must determine." The defendant's attorney is responsible for doing that. That and in light of the "severity and irrevocability of the sanction at stake," the standard for effective assistance in capital sentencing proceedings must be especially stringent. Accordingly, Marshall believed that a person on death row seeking relief from his death sentence on grounds of ineffective assistance should not have to show a reasonable probability that he would not have received a death sentence if counsel had presented more mitigating evidence. Because it was clear that Washington's attorney had failed to investigate and then present large amounts of information to the sentencing judge, Marshall concluded that Washington's lawyer was ineffective.

==Subsequent events==
Washington was executed on July 13, 1984, two months after the Supreme Court's decision.<ref>((Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1984/07/14/us/confessed-murderer-of-3-executed-in-florida.html|title=Confessed Murderer of 3 Executed in Florida|first=Jesus|last=Rangel|newspaper=The New York Times|date=July 14, 1984))</ref>

One of the important aspects of this decision was its relationship to ''United States v. Cronic'', 466 U.S. 648 (1984), and the number of appeals "held" by the Court in abeyance for the decision.  Justice O'Connor's ability to gain a majority in this decision prevented the antiquated "farce and mockery standard," a standard extremely difficult to achieve for an appellant, from making a return. (See Kastenberg article listed below.)

==See also==
*[[List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 466]]
*''[[Wiggins v. Smith]]'' (2003)
*''[[Premo v. Moore]]'' (2011)

==Notes==
((Reflist|group=nb))

==References==
((reflist))

==Further reading==
*((cite journal |last=Rigg |first=Robert R. |year=2007 |title=The T-Rex without Teeth: Evolving ''Strickland v. Washington'' and the Test for Ineffective Assistance of Counsel |journal=[[Pepperdine Law Review]] |volume=35 |issue=1 |pages=77–105 ))
*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),  ''available at'' [http://mississippilawjournal.org/category/volume-82/volume-82-number-3/ Mississippi Law Journal : Volume 82, Number 3]
*Kastenberg, Joshua E, "Nearing Thirty Years:  The Burger Court, Strickland v. Washington, and the Parameters of the Right to Counsel," Journal of Appellate Practice and Process, 14 J. App. Prac. & Proc 215 (2013).

==External links==
* ((caselaw source
 | case = ''Strickland v. Washington'', ((ussc|466|668|1984|el=no))
 | justia =https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/466/668/
 | loc =http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep466/usrep466668/usrep466668.pdf
 | oyez =https://www.oyez.org/cases/1983/82-1554
 | other_source1 = Lawlio
 | other_url1 =https://www.lawlio.com/opinion/111170/strickland-v-washington
 ))

((Sixth Amendment|counsel|state=expanded))

[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases]]
[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases of the Burger Court]]
[[Category:United States Sixth Amendment ineffective assistance of counsel case law]]
[[Category:1984 in United States case law]]

Pages transcluded onto the current version of this page (help):

Strickland v. Washington (edit)
Template:Ambox (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Caselaw source (view source) (extended confirmed protected)
Template:Cite journal (view source) (protected)
Template:Cite news (view source) (protected)
Template:Cite web (view source) (protected)
Template:DMCA (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Dated maintenance category (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Dated maintenance category (articles) (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:FULLROOTPAGENAME (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Find sources mainspace (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Hlist/styles.css (view source) (protected)
Template:If between (view source) (extended confirmed protected)
Template:Infobox (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Infobox SCOTUS case (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Infobox US Supreme Court case (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Infobox US Supreme Court case/courts (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Main other (view source) (protected)
Template:More citations needed (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Navbox (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Navbox with collapsible groups (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Ns has subpages (view source) (protected)
Template:Pagetype (view source) (protected)
Template:Reflist (view source) (protected)
Template:Reflist/styles.css (view source) (protected)
Template:SDcat (view source) (protected)
Template:Short description (view source) (protected)
Template:Short description/lowercasecheck (view source) (protected)
Template:Sixth Amendment (edit)
Template:Spaces (view source) (protected)
Template:Template other (view source) (protected)
Template:Tomorrow (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:US6thAmendment (edit)
Template:Use mdy dates (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Ussc (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:· (view source) (protected)
Module:Arguments (view source) (protected)
Module:Category handler (view source) (protected)
Module:Category handler/blacklist (view source) (protected)
Module:Category handler/config (view source) (protected)
Module:Category handler/data (view source) (protected)
Module:Category handler/shared (view source) (protected)
Module:Check for unknown parameters (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1 (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/COinS (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/Identifiers (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/Utilities (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css (view source) (protected)
Module:Disambiguation/templates (view source) (protected)
Module:Find sources (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Find sources/config (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Find sources/links (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Find sources/templates/Find sources mainspace (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Infobox (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Infobox/styles.css (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Italic title (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Message box (view source) (protected)
Module:Message box/ambox.css (view source) (protected)
Module:Message box/configuration (view source) (protected)
Module:Namespace detect/config (view source) (protected)
Module:Namespace detect/data (view source) (protected)
Module:Navbar (view source) (protected)
Module:Navbar/configuration (view source) (protected)
Module:Navbar/styles.css (view source) (protected)
Module:Navbox (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Navbox/configuration (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Navbox/styles.css (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Navbox with collapsible groups (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Ns has subpages (view source) (protected)
Module:Pagetype (view source) (protected)
Module:Pagetype/config (view source) (protected)
Module:Pagetype/disambiguation (view source) (protected)
Module:Pagetype/setindex (view source) (protected)
Module:Pagetype/softredirect (view source) (protected)
Module:SDcat (view source) (protected)
Module:String (view source) (protected)
Module:Unsubst (view source) (protected)
Module:Wikitext Parsing (view source) (protected)
Module:Yesno (view source) (protected)

Return to Strickland v. Washington.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strickland_v._Washington"