Court Opinion

ID: 9460053
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 21:39:19.761991+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:36:27.092433
License: Public Domain

MacKINNON, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I concur generally in the standards outlined in Judge Bazelon’s opinion for dealing with cases where inadequate assistance of counsel may be claimed; however, it does not appear to me that this is such a case. An analysis of the points stated in the majority opinion include material that is irrelevant to the conviction, inconclusive, self-contradictory and unpersuasive.
In addition, I do not concur in the conclusion that the burden in such cases to prove non-prejudice shifts to the Government. Such proof is usually more within the ability of the accused, if such evidence exists at all, and it would place an unfair burden on the Government to impose that task upon it. For instance, the accused could frustrate the Government’s effort in many instances merely by claiming his privilege against disclosing some facts on the ground that they might incriminate him.
Also the usual statement of “ineffective” assistance of counsel seems to me to imply a false standard that a counsel must be effective. That is a hard task for defense counsel in a criminal case. I believe the proper- requirement is that he be “adequate” to the task. Hence I would use the phrase “inadequate assistance of counsel.” I thus dissent to the above extent.