Opinion ID: 146638
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Strickland Ineffective Assistance Standard

Text: Once again, under Strickland, counsel's performance violates the Sixth Amendment only where counsel's conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result. 466 U.S. at 686, 104 S.Ct. 2052. To meet this test, a defendant must show (1) that counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and (2) that counsel's performance [was] prejudicial to the defense. . . . Id. at 688, 692, 104 S.Ct. 2052. Counsel's performance is objectively unreasonable only where the identified acts or omissions were outside the wide range of professionally competent assistance, as determined by prevailing professional norms. Id. at 690, 104 S.Ct. 2052. In reviewing the adequacy of counsel's performance, a court must indulge a strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance. Id. at 689, 104 S.Ct. 2052. Where, as here, the adequacy of counsel's pre-trial investigation is at issue, the Strickland Court stated: [S]trategic choices made after less than complete investigation are reasonable precisely to the extent that reasonable professional judgments support the limitations on investigation. In other words, counsel has a duty to make reasonable investigations or to make a reasonable decision that makes particular investigations unnecessary. In any ineffectiveness case, a particular decision not to investigate must be directly assessed for reasonableness in all the circumstances, applying a heavy measure of deference to counsel's judgments. Id. at 690-91, 104 S.Ct. 2052. [T]he defendant must overcome the presumption that, under the circumstances, [a] challenged action [or omission] might be considered sound trial strategy. Id. at 690, 104 S.Ct. 2052 (internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added). Meanwhile, to establish prejudice, a defendant must show a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. Id. at 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. Ibid. When determining prejudice, [a court] must consider the errors of counsel in total, against the totality of the evidence in the case. Stewart v. Wolfenbarger, 468 F.3d 338, 361 (6th Cir.2006).