Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1024307
 
 

Footnotes (188)



 


 



It's Like Déjà Vu All Over Again: Williams v. Taylor, Wiggins v. Smith, Rompilla v. Beard and a (Partial) Return to the Guidelines Approach to the Effective Assistance of Counsel


John H. Blume


Cornell Law School


American Journal of Criminal Law, Forthcoming
Cornell Legal Studies Research Paper No. 07-019

Abstract:     
Shoddy lawyering in capital cases is well documented. Many defendants facing the death penalty end up on death row not because of the heinousness of the crime they committed but rather because of the poor quality of trial counsel's performance. Despite the acknowledgment of sometimes shockingly poor representation by academics, litigators and even judges, most post-conviction claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are unsuccessful. Why? The legal standard for adjudicating these allegations which the Court adopted in Strickland v. Washington, which requires a defendant to demonstrate that his lawyer's performance was outside the "wide range of competent assistance" and that because of the substandard representation there is a reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different, has proven to be very difficult to satisfy. The Supreme Court's recent decisions in Williams v. Taylor, Wiggins v. Smith, and Rompilla v. Beard, however, have provided some reason for optimism. While purporting to operate within the Strickland framework, the Court in all cases held that trial counsel's representation was constitutionally inadequate. In doing so, the Court used the ABA Standards for Criminal Justice as norms for counsel's performance in determining what constituted objectively reasonable representation.

This article explores the jurisprudential road to Strickland, and from Strickland to Williams, Wiggins, and Rompilla. It then posits that, viewed through the lens of history, the Court's use of the ABA guidelines is reminiscent of the standard Judge Bazelon articulated thirty years ago in Decoster v. United States which the Court rejected in Strickland. Consciously or subconsciously, the Court has now embraced a variation of the Bazelon's Decoster approach when reviewing ineffective assistance of counsel claims. In all likelihood, this is because the Court concluded that Strickland's vague standard was being misunderstood and misapplied by the state and federal courts in a manner that insulated grossly incompetent representation from judicial review. Thus, the Court used the ABA guidelines to put some "flesh" on the Strickland "skeleton". Finally, the article explores the effect of the Court's decisions on ineffective assistance of counsel claims reviewed by the state and federal courts, concluding that additional reforms are needed if the promise of effective assistance of counsel is to become a reality.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 41

Accepted Paper Series





Download This Paper

Date posted: October 25, 2007  

Suggested Citation

Blume, John H., It's Like Déjà Vu All Over Again: Williams v. Taylor, Wiggins v. Smith, Rompilla v. Beard and a (Partial) Return to the Guidelines Approach to the Effective Assistance of Counsel. American Journal of Criminal Law, Forthcoming; Cornell Legal Studies Research Paper No. 07-019. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1024307

Contact Information

John H. Blume (Contact Author)
Cornell Law School ( email )
524 College Ave
Myron Taylor Hall
Ithaca, NY 14853
United States
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 2,139
Downloads: 320
Download Rank: 54,671
Footnotes:  188

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo8 in 0.250 seconds