Court held that an ineffective assistance of counsel claim may be brought in a collateral proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, “whether or not the petitioner could have raised the claim on direct appeal.” The Court did not hold that ineffective assistance claims “must be reserved for collateral review” because counsel’s ineffectiveness may be so apparent from the record that appellate counsel or the court sua sponte will consider it advisable to address the issue on direct appeal.

See also http://capdefnet.org/hat/contents/constitutional_issues/ineffective_assist/ineffective_assistance_of_counsel.htm

For one, a competency eval can be sought. Also, a client’s actions rarely ever cast doubt as to the fairness of a trial. There is a reason for Gideon. Defendants are entitled to have someone trained and experienced speak on their behalf in the complicated world of litigation.

The number of cases where a judge in fact stops the trial is not nearly enough.

I agree with Victoria that there comes a time when a judge may stick his/her nose in where it doesn’t belong, however, those are relatively few compared to where the judge needed to inquire and didn’t, IMHO. There is nothing more painful than watching not merely bad lawyering, but lawyering so beyond the pale that everyone in the courtroom, save counsel, knows an injustice is happening - and that applies to both incompetence by the defense and the prosecutor.

It is highly presumptuous to assume a lawyer is ineffective merely because one would do things or try a case differently. BAd lawetering is kind of like porn, can’t describe it; but I know it when I see it….or do I?

I am a public defender currently litigating only capital cases in a major city that’ s been in the news quite a bit becasue of our numerous capital cases. We have about 125 capital cases pending in the county.

Our superior court system has instituted a system that i was wary of at first, but now can appreciate it. We have one trial judge (rules on substantive trial matters and tries the case); we have one resolution judge (who tries to settle the case); and we have one mitigation master judge (who meets ex-parte with defense to track the progress of mitigation, who signs orders ex-parte, and ALL hearings and requests in this venue are SEALED).

Is it a tremendous amount of oversight? Yes. But it sure cuts down on ineffectiveness.

Lawyers are notorious loners who want a hands off approach. But I daresay our system here holds attorneys’ feet to the fire, makes sure they are doing their jobs in both trial and penalty phase. Plus they make sure we are working diligently towards some type of resolution. As long as the lawyers’ are doing their jobsl, they give us the time to prepare our cases. The minute they think we’re screwing around and not working….the tighten up on the time rules.

I didn’t like it at first, but it has been very helpful when utilized correctly by attorneys.

Let me add something cynical: What about clients that make it almost impossible to be represented? What can we do about them? While they are surely hurting themselves, they are harming society’s general interest in fair trials. Can someone step in and order them to cooperate with counsel?