Also known as: reasonably effective assistance of counsel · effective assistance of counsel
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A standard of attorney performance under the Sixth Amendment requiring counsel to render assistance sufficient to preserve the adversarial process and produce a reliable result.
Riley Rivera faced arson charges after a fire at his apartment complex. His lawyer failed to hire an independent expert to challenge the state's sole forensic report. The court later found the omission so undermined the adversarial testing of evidence that the conviction could not stand as a just result.
Robert Rivera asked his lawyer to call a witness who would lie about an alibi. The lawyer refused, warned the client, and prepared to disclose the perjury if necessary. The court held that this conduct preserved rather than undermined the integrity of the proceeding.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Rhea Reynolds insisted on representing herself after the court found her waiver knowing and intelligent. The trial proceeded without appointed counsel. The record showed that the absence of counsel did not itself render the process unreliable under the governing standard.
Renee Rogers appeared in a lineup after formal charges. Her lawyer was not present. The court examined whether the absence of counsel at that stage so compromised the fairness of the identification that the resulting evidence could not support a reliable conviction.
Ricardo Rojas, a minor, faced delinquency charges in a proceeding conducted without appointed counsel. The court assessed whether the lack of representation so undermined the adversarial process that the adjudication could not be relied upon as just.
Ronald Reed entered a guilty plea while maintaining innocence. His lawyer advised him on the risks and benefits. The court confirmed that the assistance received kept the plea process reliable and consistent with constitutional requirements.
A defendant must show that counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that the deficient performance created a reasonable probability of a different outcome. Both elements are required. Deficient performance alone does not establish a constitutional violation.
Supporting sources
No. Strategic choices made after investigation receive deference under the presumption of effective assistance. The decision must still be evaluated to determine whether it so undermined the adversarial process that the result cannot be relied upon.
Supporting sources
Prejudice is presumed in narrow categories such as actual or constructive denial of counsel at a critical stage. In routine cases involving trial errors, the defendant must still demonstrate a reasonable probability that competent performance would have produced a different result.
Supporting sources
Counsel's refusal to assist in presenting perjured testimony does not violate the standard. The duty of loyalty does not extend to helping a client commit perjury, and counsel may properly refuse, seek withdrawal, or disclose the perjury as a remedial measure.
Supporting sources
…of Appeals ultimately reversed, stating that the Sixth Amendment accorded criminal defendants a right to counsel rendering "reasonably effective assistance given the totality of the circumstances." After outlining standards for judging whether a defense counsel fulfilled the duty to investigate nonstatutory mitigating circumstances and whether…