In a relatively bright spot for civil rights, the U.S. Supreme Court last term often ruled in favor of convicted prisoners claiming constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel. In nine cases, eight of which involved death-row inmates, the Court confronted disturbing examples of malfeasance, made clear its sympathy for military veterans and its unease with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, wrestled with the appropriate role of professional standards in defining Sixth Amendment rights, and opened up an entirely new area of ineffective-assistance claims. While most of the Court’s rulings were narrow, taken together they suggest a Court open to claims by prisoners asserting violations of their constitutional right to counsel.
Ineptitude and Worse
Four cases before the Supreme Court last term illustrate the range of problems encountered by poor criminal defendants. Perhaps the worst example of lawyer ineptitude came in the capital prosecution of Frank Spisak Jr., who had been convicted of three murders and two attempted murders of blacks and Jews at Cleveland State University. After a disastrous appearance by Mr. Spisak on the stand during the penalty phase, his lawyer offered a closing argument that described Mr. Spisak’s gruesome killings in detail, acknowledged that the crimes were inspired by Mr. Spisak’s admiration for Adolf Hitler, portrayed Mr. Spisak as “sick,” “twisted,” and “demented,” and said that he was “never going to be any different.”
