Which admittedly makes traffic court a lot more interesting.
I assume that was the point of Bricker’s comment about Strickland - the appeal was denied. Basically, enough compelling evidence was presented that the judges decided even a competent attorney would not have changed the verdict?
AK84 asked why ineffective assistance is not “professional negligence” which sounds like more of a tort issue than a disciplinary issue - but I did also mention sanctions because I was talking about disciplinary issues too. I’m not sure why you thought I conflated them.
Well Bricker was talking about an appeal, by someone convicted at trial, who wanted his conviction reversed because (he said) his lawyer was ineffective. The Constitution guarantees effective assistance of counsel, so had he succeeded, his conviction would have been overturned. The State (meaning the prosecutor) would have had to choose between letting him go or trying him again.
Many appeals by people convicted at trial contain ineffective assistance claims.
To succeed they have to prove two things: 1.) that their lawyer really did fuck up; and 2.) that whatever they did or didn’t do would have resulted in a different outcome.
In Texas, at least, appellate courts rely heavily on #2. “Yeah, maybe your lawyer did fuck up, but it doesn’t matter, because you would have been convicted anyway.” It’s a way of avoiding overturning sentences, while at the same time not fixing a broken system.
The truth is there’s often no real way of knowing how a particular case might have turned out if the defendant had had a competent - rather than incompetent - lawyer.