Strickland V. Washington

            
             This case deals with the right to effective counsel and the sixth amendment. In 1976 the respondent Washington and two accomplices went on a ten day crime spree where they committed three brutal stabbing murders, a kidnapping, torture, severe assaults to individuals, attempted murder, and theft. After police apprehended Washington's two accomplices he surrendered to police. While in custody Washington went against his knowledgeable defense attorney and confessed to his crimes waived a jury trial and pleaded guilty.
             .
             This left Strickland the defense attorney little options to prepare for court. He spoke with Washington about his background and spoke with the defendant's wife and mother via phone gathering as much useful information he could. Attorney Strickland did not seek out character witnesses or request a psychiatric examination feeling the respondent suffered from no psychological issues. He also excluded the rap sheet, which Strickland felt might further damage the respondent's integrity. At the sentencing hearing counsel argued the respondent's acceptance of his actions justified sparing him the death penalty. In the judge's decision he found more aggravating circumstances than minagating circumstances and sentenced Washington to death on three separate counts of murder.
             After being sentenced the respondent sought collateral relief for ineffective assistance at the sentencing procedure. In six respects the trial court rejected the challenge to ineffective counsel since the respondent failed in showing counsels assistance was below competent and was unlikely to affect the outcome of the case. After being denied for the same reasons at the Florida Supreme Court, Washington filed a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for ineffective counsel. Here the court looked at counsel's efforts to investigate and present mitigating circumstances. The court concluded though the counsel made errors in judgment to investigate, no prejudice to the respondent resulted and the outcome would not have changed.