Strickland Claims: Challenging Your Attorney's Ineffective Representation

The Strickland Framework

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) is the foundational Supreme Court case establishing the constitutional right to effective counsel. It created a two-part test — now universally called the "Strickland test" — that governs every ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) claim in American courts.

Understanding the Strickland test is essential for anyone who believes their attorney failed them.

Prong One: Deficient Performance

The first prong asks whether your attorney's performance "fell below an objective standard of reasonableness" as measured by "prevailing professional norms."

Courts begin with a strong presumption of competence. Every strategic decision — what witnesses to call, how to cross-examine, whether to object — is presumed to be reasonable trial strategy. Overcoming this presumption requires pointing to specific acts or omissions that no reasonable attorney would have made.

Examples that courts have found deficient:

Examples courts usually do not find deficient:

Prong Two: Prejudice

Even if your attorney's performance was deficient, you must also prove prejudice. Under Strickland, prejudice means "a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different."

A "reasonable probability" is less than "more likely than not" but more than a "mere possibility." The inquiry focuses on whether confidence in the outcome is undermined.

In plea cases: Prejudice means a reasonable probability you would not have pleaded guilty and would have gone to trial, or that you would have received a more favorable plea offer.

Cumulative IAC

Even if no single error meets the Strickland threshold, the cumulative effect of multiple attorney errors can establish prejudice. This is a powerful theory when the attorney made multiple small mistakes that together undermined the defense.

Strickland in Federal Habeas

In federal habeas proceedings, Strickland claims face an extra layer of deference. Under AEDPA, a federal court must determine not just whether Strickland was satisfied, but whether the state court's application of Strickland was "unreasonable." This is an extremely high bar — but federal courts do grant relief in exceptional cases.

Practical Steps

If you believe your trial attorney was ineffective:

1. Do not raise it on direct appeal unless the record itself contains the evidence you need. IAC claims almost always require evidence outside the record, which means post-conviction proceedings.

2. Preserve the claim in state post-conviction proceedings before going to federal court.

3. Consult an appellate attorney who can review the trial record, attorney billing records, and investigative files to identify the specific failures.

At Libre Litigation, we have extensive experience evaluating and litigating IAC claims at both the state and federal level.