Opinion ID: 2124187
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: American Bar Association Standards

Text: The American Bar Association Standards for Criminal Justice Prosecution Function and Defense Function (3d ed [ABA Standards]) illustrate the recommended allocation of decision-making authority between the accused and defense counsel. The ABA Standards represent the prevailing norms of criminal defense practice and are guides used to determine what is reasonable regarding such practice ( see Strickland v Washington, 466 US at 688). ABA Standard 4-5.2 entitled Control and Direction of the Case provides: (a) Certain decisions relating to the conduct of the case are ultimately for the accused and others are ultimately for defense counsel. The decisions which are to be made by the accused after full consultation with counsel include: (i) what pleas to enter; (ii) whether to accept a plea agreement; (iii) whether to waive jury trial; (iv) whether to testify in his or her own behalf; and (v) whether to appeal. (b) Strategic and tactical decisions should be made by defense counsel after consultation with the client where feasible and appropriate. Such decisions include what witnesses to call, whether and how to conduct cross-examination, what jurors to accept or strike, what trial motions should be made, and what evidence should be introduced. (c) If a disagreement on significant matters of tactics or strategy arises between defense counsel and the client, defense counsel should make a record of the circumstances, counsel's advice and reasons, and the conclusion reached. The record should be made in a manner which protects the confidentiality of the lawyer-client relationship ( see ABA Standard 4-5.2 [3d ed 1993]). ABA Standard 4-5.2 expanded the fundamental decisions reserved to a defendant under Jones v Barnes by adding the right to determine whether a proffered plea agreement should be accepted ( see ABA Standard 4-5.2, Commentary, at 201 [3d ed 1993]). Further, under ABA Standard 4-5.2, when making any of the above fundamental decisions, the accused should have the full and careful advice of counsel ( id. ). Ultimately, however, because of the fundamental nature of decisions such as these, so crucial to the accused's fate, the accused must make the decisions himself or herself ( id. ). Regarding defense counsel's decision-making authority, ABA Standard 4-5.2 grants wide discretion as evidenced by the fact that defense counsel must consult with defendant when, in counsel's judgment, such consultation is both feasible and appropriate ( id. ). The language `where feasible and appropriate' . . . reflect[s] the fact that sometimes consultation is virtually impossible, e.g., in the middle of cross-examination ( see ABA Standard 4-5.2, History of Standard, at 200 [3d ed 1993]).