CJS251 Phoenix Courtroom Participation Professional Standards Presentation Create an 8- to 10-slide Microsoft® PowerPoint® presentation, with a minimum of

CJS251 Phoenix Courtroom Participation Professional Standards Presentation Create an 8- to 10-slide Microsoft® PowerPoint® presentation, with a minimum of 100 words of speaker notes, in which you summarize each example and address the following questions:

What did the prosecutor do wrong? How does immunity protect the prosecutor from the consequences of his or her misconduct?

What did the criminal defense attorney do wrong? What is the Strickland v. Washington standard? Refer to Ch. 10 of Courts and Criminal Justice in America. How do the performance prong and the prejudice prong of the Strickland standard apply to the example? (SEE ATTACHED)

What did the judge do wrong? Which judicial selection option—either appointment, election, or merit—would help to reduce instances of judicial misconduct?

How does the misconduct or ineffectiveness of these courtroom participants reflect or thwart the crime control model of criminal justice? How does the misconduct or ineffectiveness of these courtroom participants reflect or thwart the due process model of criminal justice?

Format your presentation consistent with APA guidelines.

***NO PLAGIARISM Effective Assistance of Counsel
Over the years, the Supreme Court has paid increasing attention to effective assistance of
counsel. In general, defense representation must be effective for the Sixth Amendment to be
satisfied. The Sixth Amendment does not explicitly state that effective assistance of counsel is
required, but the Supreme Court has interpreted it this way. However, the right to effective
assistance only applies where the right to counsel applies. For example, the Supreme Court has
held that a defense attorney’s failure to file a timely discretionary appeal was not “ineffective”
because the right to counsel does not extend to such appeals.18 Only where counsel is required
can an ineffective assistance claim be made.
Ineffective assistance claims can be filed against both retained and appointed counsel. For a
time the Supreme Court held that nonindigent defendants who retained their own attorney
were bound by that attorney’s representation (for better or worse) because there was no
“state action” responsible for the ineffective representation. However, in Cuyler v. Sullivan,19
the Court held that privately retained counsel can be ineffective in the same way a public
defender can.20
When Is Counsel Effective?
What is effective assistance of counsel? The Supreme Court first tried to answer this question in
the 1970 case of McMann v. Richardson.21 There, it held that counsel is effective when the legal
advice is “within the range of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal cases.” 22 This
standard was somewhat vague, so the Court offered clarification in Strickland v. Washington.23
In that case, the Court created a two-pronged test for determining effective assistance of
counsel:
•
First, the defendant must show that counsel’s performance was deficient. This requires
showing that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the
“counsel” guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment. Second, the defendant must
show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. This requires showing that
counsel’s errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose
result is unreliable.24
These two prongs have come to be known as the “performance prong” and the “prejudice
prong.” Concerning performance, “The proper measure of attorney performance remains
simply reasonableness under prevailing professional norms.”25 What are these “norms”? We
discuss them further in the “Effective Assistance of Counsel” section that appears in this
chapter, but some of the key elements of effective performance include:
•
•
■ Avoiding conflicts of interest
■ Advocating for the defendant
•
•
■ Bringing to bear “such skill and knowledge as will render the trial a reliable adversarial
testing process”26
■ “[Making] reasonable investigations or … [making] a reasonable decision that makes
particular investigations unnecessary”27
As for the prejudice prong of Strickland, the defendant must prove that “there is a reasonable
probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would
have been different.”28 In other words, it is not enough for counsel to be ineffective; if the
defendant is to succeed in an argument that his or her Sixth Amendment right to counsel was
violated, the defendant must prove that the attorney’s ineffectiveness prejudiced the case. This
means that little mistakes probably won’t matter, but gross incompetence probably does.

Purchase answer to see full
attachment