For years, New York has evaluated a criminal defense attorney’s effectiveness under a “meaningful representation” standard. The standard was first articulated in People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147 (1981), but derives from the 1976 case of People v. Droz, 39 N.Y.2d 457, 463 (1976).
Recently, several judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit have signaled that New York’s articulation of the standard is ambiguous and may conflict with the federal ineffective assistance standard set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). This past April, one panel of judges in Ramchair v. Conway, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 1253893 (2d Cir. April 2, 2010), intimated that the New York standard may not comport with Strickland, while another in Rosario v. Ercole, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 1427507 (2d Cir. April 10, 2010), took pains to point out that it does, but acknowledged the standard’s ambiguity.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
