Respond to Briana:

1. How effective do you believe the current legal framework is in ensuring the right to competent legal representation for all defendants, regardless of their financial status"?

Answer: These cases highlight the importance of the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel, and the potential consequences that can arise when this right is not upheld. In Missouri v. Frye, the defendant pleaded guilty to driving with a revoked license, but his attorney failed to inform him of a favorable plea offer from the prosecution, resulting in a longer prison sentence (Missouri V. Frye, 566 U.S. 134 (2012), n.d.). Similarly, in Lafler v. Cooper, the defendant's attorney advised him to reject a plea bargain, which ultimately led to a longer sentence after a jury trial. In both cases, the defendants argued that their attorneys provided ineffective assistance, violating their constitutional rights (Lafler V. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (2012), n.d.). These cases highlight the issue of unequal access to competent legal representation, with the defendants in these cases being at a disadvantage due to their financial status. This is a recurring problem in the criminal justice system, where low-income defendants often face subpar legal representation, leading to unequal outcomes compared to wealthier defendants who can afford better attorneys. This raises concerns about the fairness and integrity of the criminal justice system, as the outcome of a case should not be determined by one's financial status. The financial burden of hiring competent attorneys often falls on the defendant, creating a significant barrier for low-income individuals. This further perpetuates the cycle of inequality within the criminal justice system, as those who cannot afford proper legal representation are at a disadvantage in defending themselves against criminal charges.

1. Right to Incompetent Counsel - Based on your reading of the cases this week: Should the Court be able to act in a defendant's best interest in providing alternative counsel if current counsel appears incompetent.

Answer: Based on these cases, the Court should have the ability to act in a defendant's best interest in providing alternative counsel if the current counsel appears to be incompetent. The right to competent counsel is a fundamental aspect of the criminal justice system, and it is the responsibility of the Court to ensure that this right is upheld. The consequences of having an incompetent defense attorney can be severe, as seen in these cases, and it is the duty of the Court to intervene if necessary to protect the defendant's rights. Ultimately, the goal is to ensure a fair trial for the defendant, and that cannot be achieved if they do not have adequate representation. In Padilla v. KY, the defendant, a legal permanent resident, was advised by his attorney to plead guilty to a drug charge without being informed of the potential consequences of deportation. The Court held that this failure to advise the defendant of the immigration consequences of his guilty plea constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. This case highlighted the importance of defense attorneys being knowledgeable about the collateral consequences of a guilty plea and adequately advising their clients (Padilla V. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010), n.d.) In Missouri v. Frye, the defendant was represented by a public defender who failed to communicate a plea offer from the prosecution. As a result, the defendant missed the deadline to accept the plea and was ultimately convicted of a more serious offense. The Supreme Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment right to effective counsel had been violated as the defendant did not receive proper representation. This case highlighted the importance of communication between defense counsel and their clients, and the potential consequences of not doing so (Missouri V. Frye, 566 U.S. 134 (2012), n.d.)

1. Strategy vs. Competence - How should we draw the line between poor judgment by attorneys and incompetence? Also, should questions of competence extend to an attorney's performance in plea negotiations and other pre-trial matters?

Answer: The cases of Missouri v. Frye, Lafler v. Cooper, and Padilla v. KY all deal with the issue of attorney competence and its impact on criminal cases. These cases have raised important questions about where to draw the line between poor judgment by attorneys and actual incompetence. In Missouri v. Frye, the defendant argued that his attorney had not informed him of a plea deal offered by the prosecution, which would have resulted in a lighter sentence. The Supreme Court ruled that this failure to communicate the plea deal constituted ineffective assistance of counsel, and the defendant was granted a new trial (Missouri V. Frye, 566 U.S. 134 (2012), n.d.) Similarly, in Lafler v. Cooper, the defendant's attorney had advised him to reject a plea deal, even though it would have resulted in a shorter sentence. The Supreme Court again ruled in favor of the defendant, stating that the attorney's advice went against his client's best interest and was therefore incompetent (Lafler V. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (2012), n.d.) One factor that may be considered is the level of experience and expertise of the attorney. In Padilla v. KY, the defendant claimed that his attorney had not informed him of the potential immigration consequences of his guilty plea (Padilla V. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010), n.d.) The Supreme Court ruled that this failure to provide accurate advice fell below the standards of competent representation, and the defendant was granted a new trial. These negotiations can often have a significant impact on the outcome of a case, and it is crucial for attorneys to be experienced in this aspect of criminal law. Incompetent representation during this stage can lead to a defendant accepting a plea deal that is not in their best interest, resulting in a longer sentence or other consequences. Therefore, questions of competence should not be limited to an attorney's performance in the courtroom but should also extend to their performance during plea negotiations and other pre-trial matters.

Respond to Ashley

1. How effective do you believe the current legal framework is in ensuring the right to competent legal representation for all defendants, regardless of their financial status"?

I believe all of the framework around The Sixth Amendment has given the right to competent legal representation for all defendants regardless of there financial status. The court gives the right to the defendant to provide proof that the lawyers legal representation is below an objective standard of reasonable, giving the final decision to the court to determine if the counsel is competent or not.

2. Right to Incompetent Counsel -Based on your reading of the cases this week:Should the Court be able to act in a defendant's best interest in providing alternative counsel if current counsel appears incompetent?

Defendants have a Constitutional Right to effect assistance of counsel(Sixth Amendment). The attorney must act in the best interest of the defendant and advocate for their right. When a defendant raises the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel, the burden is on the defendants to show how the attorneys performance fell below the objective standard of reasonableness. It is then that the Court judge should make the final decision to whether the counsel is ineffective/incompetent.

3. Strategy vs. Competence -How should we draw the line between poor judgment by attorneys and incompetence? Also, should questions of competence extend to an attorney's performance in plea negotiations and other pre-trial matters?

The line between poor judgement and incompetence is the Judge and if they violated the Sixth Amendment or not. The questions of competence should extend to an attorney's performance in plea negotiations and other pre-trial errors if the defendant feels like there is no contact or minimal contact about his case. In Missouri vs. Fry, the Court held that the Sixth Amendment requires defense attorneys to communicate formal plea offers from the prosecution. There wouldn't be any question of incompetence as long as the Attorney is doing their job which is defending the defendant to their best abilities.