Right to Have Counsel Be “Effective”
Right to counsel is the right to the effective assistance of counsel
Cronic – have to have actual breakdown of adversarial process
point out specific errors of counsel and how affected case
if denied counsel, obviously not valid
Strickland – C says bad decision; standard for attorney so low as to be nearly meaningless (although sadly, some attys do manage to fall below it)
a.  D must affirmatively prove both:
actual conduct of attorney, specific errors
prejudice – outcome determinative (outcome would have been different)
Need to be so severe as to undermine confidence in proceeding
If no prejudice in first place, don’t need to look at errors.
So if evidence against D is super strong, essentially don’t have claim
Very deferential to atty … look for reasons why they would have done an act
If atty falls asleep but evidence overwhelming ok … unless at crucial time
These claims are taken on habeas corpus
Court appointed attorneys vary wildly in ability
When Client is Lying and Attorney knows about it
attorney obligation to prevent fraud on court
client’s sole decision whether to testify
attorney can withdraw from case, but this just passes on the problem
Conflict of Interest:  Joint representation, 1 attorney 2 defendants
D’s may try to save money or get one better attorney
Ask for waiver on record, judge does not have to accept and can conflict the attorney out
Judge should make inquiry into conflict
grounds for overturning verdict only if adversely effects performance
D showing conflict of interest affected adequacy of representation need not show actual prejudice
3rd Party Hires Attorney – inherent danger; 3rd party may have interests and will sacrifice those of D
Additional Services State must Provide (Other than Counsel) – Experts
D counsel can make motion for assistance of expert in some cases
in death penalty case where D asserts incompetence to stand trial
maybe for insanity defense, if D attorney shows instrumental to proper preparation and proper functioning of judiciary system
Self-Representation and Waiver of Sixth Amendment Rights
Constitutional right to trial by jury, not to bench trial, so P can insist on jury
You do have an independent Constitutional right to represent yourself
USSC held that to exercise right of self-representation you have to waive the right to counsel/6A
waiver has to be knowing and voluntary
Prudent judge should appoint stand-by counsel just in case she has to take over
Stand-by can’t occasionally step in – no hybrid representation
Faretta – courts need be deferential to self-representation
judge can’t give a “test” on laws of evidence
D need not be proficient, just know basics
Appeal
there is no Constitutional right to an appeal in the first place
Where there is appeal, do have right to counsel if appeal
USSC case pending:  C says will probably hold do NOT have right to represent self (bc more complex legal issues involved)