Strickland vs. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) Research Paper

Strickland vs. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) - Research Paper Example He said that his lack of ability to support his family caused the stress. While the attorney was preparing for the hearing, although he spoke with the defendant about his background, he failed to ask for a psychiatric evaluation of the defendant, to seek a presentence report or to look for character witnesses. His decision of not presenting evidence concerning the emotional state and character of the defendant reflected his judgment that as to such matters, relying on the plea colloquy for evidence was advisable in order to avert the State from carrying out a cross-examination on the defendant as well as presenting its own psychiatric evidence. The article further states that the reason behind the defense attorney not requesting a presentence report was that it would have included the criminal history of the defendant, which would in turn undermine the claim that he did not have any considerable prior criminal record (1). Finding no extenuating circumstances that would make it rule otherwise, the trial court pronounced a death sentence on the defendant. The defendant, following the exhaustion of his state court remedies, filed a habeas corpus petition in a federal district court in Florida. He challenged the death sentence arguing that there had been a violation of his Sixth Amendment right for the reason that during the sentencing proceeding, his defense counsel had not represented him effectively/adequately. Subsequent to an evidentiary hearing of the defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the District Court denied relief. Although the Florida’s federal district court rebuffed the petition, the defendant appealed in the United States’ Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which reversed it holding that according to the Sixth Amendment, criminal defendants had a right to receive plausibly effective help from the counsel given the totality of the