Case Study: Strickland V. Washington

The Supreme Court's decision in Strickland v. Washington provided for fairness in the judicial process in three main ways. First and foremost, the Court determined that any claim of ineffectiveness of counsel must be judged on whether the entire trial should be considered unjust because the counsel’s conduct was so poor that it failed to allow for the proper application of the judicial process. Next, the Court provided a standard two part test for determining when a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel is violated by the inadequate performance of counsel. Lastly, it protected the legal process from continual and frivolous claims for relief when defendants lose their criminal cases. By examining whether the entire trial is to be considered unjust due to the counsel’s poor conduct safeguards the legal process and provides for fairness. The Court is interested in maintaining that the justice

This two part test provided for fairness in the judicial process because it set a reasonable compromise among the many state and federal courts. In its effort to strive for fairness, the Court also required that both parts of the test must be met to find that there was a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Prior to the Court establishing this test the state and federal courts maintained a variety of standards for making determination. A variety of standards allowed for differing applications and interpretations of our basic Constitutional rights across the country. This multi-standard approach served to create unfairness in the safeguarding of a defendant's rights because different jurisdictions had varying levels of protection for the same right. For fairness to ensue there simply must be one unified standard, and in this case the Supreme Court provided for this and unified the many state and federal