OJ Simpson has claimed that his attorney for his Las Vegas robbery trial was ineffective. He has asserted two bases for his claim: 1) conflict of interest, and 2) failure to tell him about a plea offer. This raises the question of what a criminal defendant must show for a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.
What Is Ineffective Assistance of Counsel?
The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees a criminal defendant the right to the effective assistance of counsel.
What Is Ineffective Assistance of Counsel?
The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees a criminal defendant the right to the effective assistance of counsel.
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall . . . have the assistance of counsel for his defense." |
That doesn't mean a defendant has the right to a perfect attorney or even a really good attorney. It simply means a defendant has the right to an attorney who doesn't mess up in a way that is considered outside the professional norm. Even then, the mess-up has to be so bad that it changes the outcome of the case.
Unlike a trial where the prosecution has the burden of proof to show a defendant is guilty, here it is the defendant's burden to prove that his attorney was ineffective. This is usually done through a petition for writ of habeas corpus. The defendant has to prove two things.
First, he must prove that his attorney acted outside the bounds of what is acceptable for a criminal defense attorney. This must be something more than a disagreement about tactics. It has to be something big. There are cases where even a drunk or sleeping attorney has not been held constitutionally ineffective.
Second, the defendant must prove that the attorney's mistake changed the outcome of the case. "If it wasn't for the mistake, I would have been acquitted." This is called prejudice.
Was OJ Denied the Right to the Effective Assistance of Counsel?
In OJ Simpson's case, he claims his attorney had a conflict of interest because he advised OJ that taking his memorabilia back was legal. A conflict of interest usually exists when an attorney has divided loyalties. Even if OJ's claim is true, it is unclear how that would have divided the attorney's loyalties. It is also unclear how that would have changed the outcome of the case. OJ would have to show his attorney's conflict caused him to be convicted when he would not have otherwise.
OJ's other claim is that his attorney did not tell him about a plea offer. a criminal defense attorney has a duty to communicate any plea offers to his client. The problem with this claim is that OJ would have to prove that he would have accepted the plea offer if he had known about it. Without that showing, there is no prejudice. No harm, no foul. This is highly unlikely here. I suspect there is nothing that would have gotten OJ to plead guilty in this case.
It is generally very difficult for a criminal defendant to show that her attorney has been constitutionally ineffective. It does not appear that OJ will be able to make that showing.
Sign up for my free eBook revealing the Top 7 Mistakes Made by Writers of Crime, Mystery, and Legal Drama.
Unlike a trial where the prosecution has the burden of proof to show a defendant is guilty, here it is the defendant's burden to prove that his attorney was ineffective. This is usually done through a petition for writ of habeas corpus. The defendant has to prove two things.
First, he must prove that his attorney acted outside the bounds of what is acceptable for a criminal defense attorney. This must be something more than a disagreement about tactics. It has to be something big. There are cases where even a drunk or sleeping attorney has not been held constitutionally ineffective.
Second, the defendant must prove that the attorney's mistake changed the outcome of the case. "If it wasn't for the mistake, I would have been acquitted." This is called prejudice.
Was OJ Denied the Right to the Effective Assistance of Counsel?
In OJ Simpson's case, he claims his attorney had a conflict of interest because he advised OJ that taking his memorabilia back was legal. A conflict of interest usually exists when an attorney has divided loyalties. Even if OJ's claim is true, it is unclear how that would have divided the attorney's loyalties. It is also unclear how that would have changed the outcome of the case. OJ would have to show his attorney's conflict caused him to be convicted when he would not have otherwise.
OJ's other claim is that his attorney did not tell him about a plea offer. a criminal defense attorney has a duty to communicate any plea offers to his client. The problem with this claim is that OJ would have to prove that he would have accepted the plea offer if he had known about it. Without that showing, there is no prejudice. No harm, no foul. This is highly unlikely here. I suspect there is nothing that would have gotten OJ to plead guilty in this case.
It is generally very difficult for a criminal defendant to show that her attorney has been constitutionally ineffective. It does not appear that OJ will be able to make that showing.
Sign up for my free eBook revealing the Top 7 Mistakes Made by Writers of Crime, Mystery, and Legal Drama.
RSS Feed