ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL

assistance of counsel.Representation by a lawyer, esp. in a criminal case. • The phrase in its

modern uses derives from the Sixth Amendment: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall

enjoy the right … to have the assis-tance of counsel for his defense.” U.S. Const. amend. VI. See

RIGHT TO COUNSEL . [Cases: Criminal Law    641.13. C.J.S. Criminal Law §§ 304–305.]

effective assistance of counsel.A conscientious, meaningful legal representation, whereby the

defendant is ad-vised of all rights and the lawyer performs all required tasks reasonably according

to  the  prevailing  professional  standards in  criminal  cases. See  Fed.  R. Crim.  P.  44; 18  USCA  §

3006A.

“The  law  is in  flux  on  precisely  what  constitutes  the  ‘effective’  assistance  of  counsel.  The

Supreme Court has yet to set forth a definitive standard, and lower courts have adopted differing

ones. Prior to the 1970s the most common standard was the ‘mockery of justice’ standard, under

which counsel’s assistance was ‘ineffective’ only when it was so inadequate that it reduced the trial

‘to a farce’ or rendered it a ‘mockery of justice.’ Since that time, most courts have abandoned this

formulation in favor of  more stringent requirements, stipulating, for example, that ‘counsel must

exercise [the] normal skill and knowledge which normally prevails at the time and place’ (Moore v.

United States, 432 F.2d 730 (3d Cir. 1970)), that counsel  must render the ‘reasonably competent

as-sistance of an attorney acting as his diligent advocate’ (United States v. Decoster, 487 F.2d 1197

(D.C.  Cir.  1973)),  or  that  counsel’s  representation  must  be  ‘within  the  range  of  competence

demanded of attorneys in criminal cases’ (Marzullo v. Maryland, 561 F.2d 540 (4th Cir. 1977)). All

of these new standards beg the questions of what traditional level of practice is to be regarded as

‘customary,’  ‘diligent,’  or  ‘reasonable.’  Thus,  little  has  been  definitively  resolved  by  the  new,

higher standards.” Arval A. Morris, “Right to Counsel,” in 1 Encyclopedia of Crime and Justice

278, 283 (Sanford H. Kadish ed., 1983).

ineffective assistance of counsel.A representation in which the defendant is deprived of a fair

trial because the lawyer handles the case unreasonably, usu. either by performing incompetently or

by not devoting full effort to the defendant, esp. because of a conflict of interest. • In determining

whether a criminal defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel, courts generally consider

several  factors:  (1)  whether  the  lawyer  had  previously  handled  criminal  cases;  (2)  whether

strategic trial tactics were involved in the allegedly incompetent action; (3) whether, and to what

extent,  the  defendant  was  prejudiced  as  a  result  of  the  lawyer’s  alleged  ineffectiveness;  and  (4)

whether the ineffectiveness was due to matters beyond the lawyer’s control.

“The Sixth Amendment right to assistance of counsel has been held to imply the ‘right to the

effective  assistance  of  counsel.’  The  Court  has  often  said  that  the  converse  —  ineffective

assistance of counsel — is a constitutional denial of the Sixth Amendment right, even if the lawyer

has  been  retained  by  rather  than  appointed  for  the  de-fendant. ‘Ineffective’  does  not necessarily

mean  incompetent  or  unprepared;  it  means  an  inability  to  perform  as  an  independent  lawyer

devoted  to  the  defendant….  However,  counsel’s  assistance  is  not  necessarily  ineffective  because

the  lawyer  made  mistakes.  Only  very  serious  errors,  such  as  would  likely  have  produced  an

entirely  different  outcome at trial, will suffice to require a new trial.” Jethro K. Lieberman,  The

Evolving Constitution 263–64 (1992).[Blacks Law 8th]