Skip to content

Successful Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Cases | Trial Lawyer

Trial of a federal criminal case is a complex undertaking that should be limited to experienced criminal litigators. Unfortunately for many federal criminal defendants, not every lawyer willing to take a criminal case to trial should be doing so. As the successful ineffective assistance of counsel cases below illustrate, there are many ways in which a trial lawyer can fail to provide the effective assistance of counsel that federal defendants are constitutionally guaranteed.

Successful Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Cases

  • Rayborn v. United States, 489 Fed.Appx. 871 (6th Cir. 2012). Trial lawyer’s failure to provide adequate advice and preparation for testimony was prejudicial to defendant and amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel.

 

  • Lopez v. United States, 522 Fed.Appx. 684 (11th Cir. 2013). Remand for IAC determination where counsel prohibited the defendant from exercising his right to testify.trial lawyer, successful ineffective assistance of counsel cases

 

  • Ward v. United States, 995 F.2d 1317 (6th Cir. 1993). Counsel was ineffective where he opened the door to otherwise inadmissible character evidence, made illogical and incomprehensible comments on the record, and acted inappropriately towards the government.

 

  • United States v. Holder, 410 F.3d 651 (10th Cir. 2005). Remand for IAC determination where trial lawyer failed to call the only two witnesses to the shooting.

 

  • Koskela v. United States, 235 F.3d 1148 (8th Cir. 2001). Remand for IAC determination where counsel failed to present the alibi defense and alibi witnesses.

 

  • Gonzalez-Soberal v. United States, 244 F.3d 273 (1st Cir. 2001). Trial lawyer was ineffective where he failed to use documentary evidence to impeach the only adverse witness.

 

  • Hughes v. United States, 258 F.3d 453 (6th Cir. 2001). Counsel was ineffective where he failed to strike a juror who expressly stated that she could not be fair.

 

  • Brown v. United States, 167 F.3d 109 (2d Cir. 1999). Counsel was ineffective in failing to challenge obviously deficient reasonable doubt instructions.

 

  • United States v. Swanson, 943 F.2d 1070 (9th Cir. 1991). Trial lawyer was ineffective where he conceded to the jury that there was no reasonable doubt as to the ultimate facts.

 

  • Smith v. United States, 182 F.3d 1023 (8th Cir. 1999). Remand for IAC determination where counsel failed to object to defendant’s appearance at trial in an orange jumpsuit.

 

  • United States v. Liv, 731 F.3d 982 (9th Cir. 2013). Where trial lawyer failed to raise an obvious statute of limitations defense, he provided ineffective assistance of counsel. Section 2255 relief granted.

 

Skilled Attorneys Experienced at Identifying Successful Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Cases and Ineffective Trial Lawyers

If you believe that defense counsel made a mistake in your federal criminal trial, contact the Law Offices of Brandon Sample today. Our attorneys have experience with federal criminal trial practice, and know a mistake when they see one. Our professional staff will consult with you on your ineffective assistance of counsel claim and ensure that you get your best shot at section 2255 relief.

Trial Lawyer | Successful Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Cases

Q: My trial lawyer was utterly incompetent. Can I file a section 2255 motion for collateral relief?

A: It is not uncommon for federal prisoners to believe that trial counsel did a terrible job. While this is not usually the case, there are many instances where trial lawyers fail to perform in a professional manner. If a section 2255 movant can show that counsel’s performance was deficient, and that there is a reasonable probability that but for counsel’s errors, the results of the proceeding would have been different, she has a valid section 2255 claim for ineffective assistance of counsel.

Q: My trial counsel refused to allow me to testify. Can I claim ineffective assistance of counsel in a section 2255 motion?

A: If your counsel prevented you from  testifying in your defense at trial, call us right away. You may have a cognizable section 2255 case. We are aware of a number of successful ineffective assistance of counsel cases which might be of use in supporting your 2255 petition.

Q: My trial lawyer refused to investigate my defense, and wouldn’t even locate my witnesses! Was he ineffective?

A: Failure to properly investigate or locate witnesses is a classic example of ineffective assistance of counsel. Sadly, criminal defense attorneys are often overworked, and cannot commit the appropriate amount of time to the defense of every client. If your attorney failed to investigate your defense, contact your witnesses, or present exculpatory evidence, contact us now. One of our experienced section 2255 litigators will discuss your ineffective assistance of counsel claim with you.

Related Content

Cognizable Claims: Overview

Cognizable Claims: The Court Lacked Jurisdiction

Cognizable Claims: The Conviction or Sentence Violates the Constitution

Cognizable Claims: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: Pretrial

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: Sentencing

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: Appeal

Cognizable Claims: The Conviction or Sentence Violates Federal Law

Cognizable Claims: The Conviction or Sentence is Otherwise Subject to Collateral Attack

Scroll To Top
Copy link
Powered by Social Snap