concluding that capital sentencing proceedings under Florida law were indistinguishable from ordinary trial for purposes of right to counsel, because they were “sufficiently like a trial in [their] adversarial format and in the existence of standards for decision”
How later courts described this case
- concluding that capital sentencing proceedings under Florida law were indistinguishable from ordinary trial for purposes of right to counsel, because they were “sufficiently like a trial in [their] adversarial format and in the existence of standards for decision”
- right to counsel also guaranteed by Wyo. Const. art. 1, § 10
- When criminal defendant complains of ineffectiveness of counsel’s assistance, the proper measure of attorney performance remains simply reasonableness under prevailing professional norms.
- when needs of grand jury conflict
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
466 U. S. 485 ;
466 U. S. 668 ;
466 U. S. 765 ; and
466 U. S. 972 . Petitions for rehearing denied.