Appellate lawyers, this one’s for you! According to a new article in Stanford Law Review, there are 4 types of ineffective assistance of counsel claims, and Strickland‘s two-part test applies to only one (that’s right one) of them. Read this article and help our courts put Strickland in its proper place.
On Point
by the Wisconsin State Public Defender
Important Posts!
- COA reverses order excluding other acts evidence, holds that greater latitude rule weakens holding of Alsteen
- In HUGE defense win, COA emphasizes that obtaining an involuntary med order is no walk in the park for the State
- SCOTUS tempers pro-gun 2nd Amendment precedent; holds States may disarm a citizen who poses “a clear threat of physical violence to another”
- COA holds, in unpublished but citable decision, that the preponderance of the evidence standard applies at a TPR dispositional hearing
- D3 affirms denial of plea withdrawal claim under Cross’ “higher, but not substantially higher” rule
Ahead in SCOW
October 7
Petitions Conference
November 11
Oral argument in Kaul v. Urmanski
November 12
Petitions conference
December 10
Petitions conference
Contact Us
On Point is sponsored by the Wisconsin State Public Defender. All content is subject to public disclosure. Comments are moderated. If you have questions about this blog, please email [email protected].
Disclaimer
On Point provides information (not legal advice) about important developments in the law. Please note that this information may not be up to date. Viewing this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship with the Wisconsin State Public Defender. Readers should consult an attorney for their legal needs.
This site rocks the Classic Responsive Skin for Thesis.
Strickland is overused, usually to the detriment of the client. When judges and prosecutors commit misconduct, for example, defense lawyers should not be attacked via Strickland for failing to correct the judge’s error or referee the prosecutor’s cheating. Rather, because judges and prosecutors have their own ethical obligations and their own constitutional duties to the defendant, their misconduct should be attacked directly. Filtering such claims through the IAC framework hurts the client — and, of course, the defense lawyer — and Strickland was never intended for such claims. You can find my article, Constraining Strickland, here: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3438665
I’ve been conviction and the (olr) office of lawyer regulations determined that my attorney James T Runyon infective scr20:1.1, & scr20:1.3, and a unknown male DNA was found I need help!!