SUSAN HERMAN: In defining and articulating standards for effective assistance of counsel, one could take any number of different approaches. One perspective might focus on how to formulate systemic standards for defense counsel, and how to communicate to the criminal defense bar what it needs todo to become effective. An example of this is the ABA standards.
A second view might concentrate on how to measure whether counsel in a particular case is providing or has provided effective assistance of counsel. If standards exist, accurate measurement may be a matter of monitoring compliance with those standards. If standards do not exist, there is the more general problem of measuring effectiveness in individual cases. Both views present the same question for our consideration today: under what circumstances should a criminal conviction be reversed on the ground that counsel was so ineffective as to violate the sixth amendment?
Before opening up the floor to a general discussion, I’d like to allow Professor Goodpaster about two minutes to reply.
Voting rights advocates should explore section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act as a vehicle to combat voter intimidation.
DOJ guidance for mentally impaired detainees in immigration removal proceedings should be amended to provide counsel at earlier signs of incompetence.
This article argues Allyene signals a shift in the availability of constitutional challenges in cases where sentencing factors are particularly important.
Scholars discuss the most significant immigration-related cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, their ramifications, and what to expect in 2020.