Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), was a landmark Supreme Court case that established the standard for determining when a criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel is violated by that counsel's inadequate performance.
In criminal law, the right to counsel means a defendant has a legal right to have the assistance of counsel (i.e., lawyers) and, if the defendant cannot afford a lawyer, requires that the government appoint one or pay the defendant's legal expenses. The right to counsel is generally regarded as a constituent of the right to a fair trial.
U.S. Const. amends. VI, XIV. Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 (1972), is a United States Supreme Court decision holding that the accused cannot be subjected to actual imprisonment unless provided with counsel. Gideon v. Wainwright made the right to counsel provided in the Sixth Amendment applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
Scott v. Illinois, 440 U.S. 367 (1979), was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States. In Scott, the Court decided whether the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments required Illinois to provide Scott with trial counsel. To emphasize the importance of court-appointed counsel, the Court opined, " [T]he interest protected by the right to ...
Pennsylvania v. Finley. Anders v. California (1967) applies only to direct appeals, not collateral postconviction proceedings. U.S. Const. amend. XIV. Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551 (1987), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the right to counsel .
Regarding sentences not immediately leading to imprisonment, the Court in Scott v. Illinois, 440 U.S. 367 (1979), ruled that counsel did not need to be appointed, but in Alabama v. Shelton, 535 U.S. 654 (2002), the Court held that a suspended sentence that may result in incarceration cannot be imposed if the defendant did not have counsel at trial.
He argued his defense counsel failed to present mitigating factors, such as his childhood abuse and trauma, during the sentencing phase of his trial, and a new sentencing trial should be conducted to consider all the mitigating factors (in addition to the prior aggravating circumstances) before deciding on his sentence.
In the federal appeals, Mullis's lawyers argued that his sentencing was unconstitutional due to ineffective trial counsel and asked that the death sentence be overturned in his case as it breached his constitutional rights. However, the federal courts rejected these arguments and upheld the death penalty in Mullis's case. [33]