Under Strickland v. Washington, if counsel's performance is deficient but does not prejudice the defendant, is there a violation?

Under Strickland v. Washington, if counsel's performance is deficient but does not prejudice the defendant, is there a violation?

• A. Performance that is deficient and prejudicial, causing a reasonable probability of a different outcome; both prongs must be met.
• B. Counsel's conduct only matters if it directly led to an illegal conviction.
• C. Any misstep by counsel; prejudice need not be shown.
• D. The defendant must show actual innocence.

Answer: (A)

Under Strickland, an ineffective-assistance claim has two requirements. First, counsel’s performance must be deficient, meaning it fell below the standard of reasonable professional help under the circumstances. Second, there must be prejudice: a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, the outcome of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a substantial likelihood, not just a possible one. If performance is deficient but there’s no prejudice, there is no Sixth Amendment violation because the outcome likely would have been the same anyway. So the correct concept is that both prongs must be satisfied for a finding of ineffective assistance. It's not about direct causation or actual innocence; the key is that the error must have changed the result.

Under Strickland, an ineffective-assistance claim has two requirements. First, counsel’s performance must be deficient, meaning it fell below the standard of reasonable professional help under the circumstances. Second, there must be prejudice: a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, the outcome of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a substantial likelihood, not just a possible one.

If performance is deficient but there’s no prejudice, there is no Sixth Amendment violation because the outcome likely would have been the same anyway. So the correct concept is that both prongs must be satisfied for a finding of ineffective assistance. It's not about direct causation or actual innocence; the key is that the error must have changed the result.