Importance Of Defense Attorney In Adversarial CJ System

Importance of defense attorney’s in adversarial CJ system What would happen to our adversarial system if there were no such things as defense attorneys? Would we openly convict offenders for any and every crime possible? Would there even be trials? Before understanding the adversarial system, it is imperative to note the absolute importance of defense attorneys. The fact of the matter is, there would be no adversarial system if defense attorneys were nonexistent today. If trials were conducted, they would be incredibly one-sided and would more than often favor the prosecution. Defense attorneys create a balance within the adversarial system; their roles ensure that the rights of their clients are not infringed upon by

Washington, the petitioner argued that his death sentence be rescinded because his defense counsel provided ineffective assistance because he was advised to plead guilty. The ‘effective counsel’ standards were established in this case. The defendant needed to properly prove that the counsel that was given was ineffective. In other words, just because your defense attorney advised you to plead guilty, does not mean that it was ‘ineffective counsel’. The defendant has to prove the causes of the ineffective counsel, such as errors they made, if they acted unprofessionally while they represented the defendant, how or why were they unprofessional? ‘Ineffective counsel’ is when an attorney makes unprofessional errors that could have been avoided, which resulted in a negative sentence for the defendant, proving that the outcome would have been different if it weren’t for the negligence of the defense attorney (Strickland v. Washington, 1984 U.S. LEXIS

Majority of cases do not reach trial because of the plea bargain. Because of this system, roughly two percent of cases make it to trial. In Brady v. United States, issues of the plea negotiations process came into question for the first time. The defendant in this case was charged with kidnapping. Though the victim was not harmed physically or psychologically, the defendant was still facing a maximum penalty of death. The defendant thought it was best to plead guilty because his accessory to the crime also pled guilty, meaning he would most likely testify against him. The defendant argued that his guilty plea was a result of his co-defendants guilty plea, and that his plea was involuntary. He claimed that his plea was coerced. His reasoning behind this was that, people make plea deals to avoid the inevitable death sentence should a jury find one guilty, and that such a provision is unconstitutional. The U.S Supreme Court ruled that the defendant made his decision without coercion, and that it was made with a sound and steady mind even though his decision was most likely influenced by the death penalty provision (Brady v. United States, 1970 U.S. LEXIS