The Right to Counsel in The US - Essay Example

The US Supreme Court established the common law doctrine of the right to legal counsel in its ruling on the landmark case of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). The tightly contested 5-4 majority decision held that both incriminating and exonerating testimonies made during police interrogations of criminal suspects will be inadmissible by the trial court if the defendant was not guaranteed the right to counsel. The law requires interrogating police officers to inform the defendant of his or her right to legal counsel throughout the investigation process. The Court decided also that every criminal suspect would only be tried legally if he or she was informed about their right to an attorney but willingly elected the waiver of the services.
In another landmark case of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984), the United States Supreme Court was confronted with the issue of determining the tests for establishing when bad lawyering contravenes the rights of a defendant as established under the Sixth Amendment (Steiker 468). The Court set up a two-point test for determining a claim of bad legal representation. Under this rule, a defendant can secure relief if he or she proves that: a) an attorney’s performance failed to meet the thresholds of an objective, reasonable professional, and; b) the performance of a counsel had a negative impact on the case to an extent that the case would be different.
Justice Brennan led the majority decision in holding that the new test by the Court for ensuring effective legal counsel would not impair the tabling of mitigating evidence (Zalman 23-59). They added that a lawyer’s general functions to assist with impartial investigations reigns supreme in every defendant’s case, especially for persons who are facing capital offenses. The Court added that capital sentence is so cruel that any claims of bad lawyering should not be tolerated since failure in that duty could precipitate wrongful executions (Steiker 469). By contrast, Justice Marshall led the dissenting opinion by arguing that the new test would yield very limited positive outcomes as far as the provisions of the Sixth Amendment rights are concerned. In the view of the dissenters, the performance threshold was so flexible that, in reality, it would not work because a) of problems in determining the competence of an attorney and b) different courts and tests for bad legal representation would yield substantial variations in the application of the Sixth Amendment.
Subsequently, the Court decision on Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (2003) aimed to define the qualities of an effective attorney as guaranteed in the Sixth Amendment. Read More