reply to these two post

 

I think the question posed by this assignment is an interesting one. It would be fairly easy to argue that the right to effective assistance to counsel based on Strickland v. Washington is not a meaningful decision, given how difficult it is to actually prove. However, I think the metric that was created is relatively fair considering the totality of the concept. If a person wants to invoke ineffective counsel they must prove that the performance of their attorney was both substandard and that the result of trial would have been different if their performance would have been better. I believe the reason that historically this has been so hard to prove is grounded in reason. If every single defendant could easily toss around the accusation that their attorney performed below standards our judicial system would turn into a kangaroo court. It should be expected that not all lawyers provide the same result because all lawyers are not the same. However, if a baseline defense is provided and nothing ridiculously egregious is done by an attorney that would visibly sway a decision, then a claim of ineffective counsel is usually disregarded, and reasonably so.

 

 

Discovery requests are an important part of pre-trial procedure that are typically focused on what the prosecution must provide to the defense. However, there are certain instances where reciprocal discovery laws can apply to the defense as well. The rules governing discovery have evolved to where they are at now to ensure that an adequate defense can be provided to an alleged offender. That being said, in the spirit of fairness, there are things that the defense must turn over to the prosecution before trial begins. Depending on the state, this can include information about potential witnesses, expert witness's reports, and physical evidence. In these limited situations, I believe it is absolutely fair to make the defense provide information to the prosecution in the discovery process.