Gard_ Ineffective Assistance of Counsel--Standards and Remedies.pdf - Missouri Law Review Volume 41 Issue 4 Fall 1976 Article 1 Fall 1976 Ineffective

Gard_ Ineffective Assistance of Counsel--Standards and Remedies.pdf

This preview shows page 1 - 3 out of 24 pages.

Missouri Law ReviewVolume 41Issue 4Fall 1976Article 1Fall 1976Ineffective Assistance of Counsel--Standards andRemediesSteven GardFollow this and additional works at:Part of theLaw CommonsThis Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. It has beenaccepted for inclusion in Missouri Law Review by an authorized administrator of University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository.Recommended CitationSteven Gard,Ineffective Assistance of Counsel--Standards and Remedies, 41 Mo. L. Rev. (1976)Available at:
Background image
MISSOURILAW REVIEWVolume 41 Fall 1976 Number 4INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL -STANDARDS AND REMEDIESSTEVEN GARD*I. INTRODUCTIONBecause of the complexities of the law and the pressures of beingfaced with prosecution the Supreme Court has long been aware of theneed which defendants in criminal cases have for counsel to representthem.' The Court has, in fact, recognized the right of an accused to suchcounsel2-a right which is derived directly from the Constitution. Thisarticle will examine the level of representation required by the Constitu-tion and will discuss the various suggestions which have been made toimprove the quality of representation received by criminal defendants.The Constitution declares that "[i]n all criminal prosecutions, theaccused shall enjoy the right ...to have the Assistance of Counsel forhis defense."3 The notion that the Constitution requires something beyondthe mere presence of an attorney at the defense table was not established,however, until the Supreme Court decided Powell v. Alabama4 in 1932.In that case seven young black men were charged with the rape of twoyoung white women in a freight car moving through Alabama. A sheriff'sposse seized the men off the train and took them to Scottsboro, the countyseat. Because of hostile community feelings, it was necessary for the statemilitia to guard the prisoners and to escort them to and from the court-house. At the defendants' arraignment the judge appointed all membersof the county bar to defend them. When the case came to trial six dayslater, the only attorney present at the defense table was an out-of-statelawyer who stated that "he had not been employed, but that people whowere interested had spoken to him about the case."5 The defendants werefound guilty and each was sentenced to death. Their appeals were dis-"Associate, Amelung, Wulff, Willenbrock, St. Louis, Missouri; Member,Missouri Bar; A.B., University of Michigan, 1972; J.D., Washington Uni-versity, 1976.1. Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932).2. Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963).3. U.S. CONST. amend. VI.
Background image
Image of page 3

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 24 pages?

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture