Digital Commons Network^™

“Far From The Turbulent Space”: Considering The Adequacy Of Counsel In The Representation Of Individuals Accused Of Being Sexually Violent Predators, Michael L. Perlin, Heather Ellis Cucolo

Michael L Perlin

Abstract:

For the past thirty years, the US Supreme Court's standard of Strickland v. Washington has governed the question of adequacy of counsel in criminal trials. There, in a Sixth Amendment analysis, the Supreme Court acknowledged that simply having a lawyer assigned to a defendant was not constitutionally adequate, but that that lawyer must provide "effective assistance of counsel," effectiveness being defined, pallidly, as requiring simply that counsel's efforts be “reasonable” under the circumstances. The benchmark for judging an ineffectiveness claim is simply “whether counsel’s conduct so undermined the proper function of the adversarial process that the trial court cannot …

Case Note: The Court Of Appeal's Lack Of Jurisdiction To Reopen Appeals: Abdullah Bin A Rahman V Public Prosecutor [[1994] 3 Slr [Singapore Law Reports] 129, Ca]; Lim Choon Chye V Public Prosecutor [[1994] 3 Slr 135, Ca], Jack Tsen-Ta Lee

Jack Tsen-Ta LEE

It is ironic that Abdullah bin A Rahman v PP and Lim Choon Chye v PP were decided in the aftermath of the Birmingham Six, Guildford Four and Maguire Seven cases from the United Kingdom. As in these cases, Abdullah and Lim Choon Chye highlight a serious flaw in our criminal justice system: there appears to be no appropriate way to correct miscarriages of justice. The purpose of this case note is to set out the conclusions reached by the Court of Appeal and to suggest directions for the future.