Would a lawyer mind commenting on if the defense counsel's behavior rises to the level of ineffective assistance of counsel? Or would much of what he did be considered a "tactic" and therefore poke holes in the ineffective assistance of counsel argument?

I'm a law student, so I wonder about these things.

The simple answer: It would be impossible to make a legally sound judgment without reading the actual trial transcript and defense files. "Ineffective assistance of counsel" is a term of art in the courts, with some specific -- and hard to reach -- standards. Behavior that most laymen would consider 'obviously ineffective' is often not considered so by the courts. Basically, according the law, you can have a downright "lousy" or "bad" lawyer, but that still does not necessarily mean they are "ineffective" in the legal sense.

Complicating the issue is the fact that since ineffectiveness if often an issue raised by the defendant on appeal, the burden is then on the defendant to prove it to the legal standard. For example, Texas didn't think that a lawyer sleeping during a trial was ineffective. IIRC the court reasoned that since there was no proof the attorney was sleeping during a 'critical point' of the trial, he must be assumed effective. Since the appeals court in such a situation is often "interpreting all the facts so as to support the non-moving party" (i.e. trying to protect the verdict, making it hard for the appellant) they will often "create" ( the judges will use the term "interpret") strategies that the attorney supposedly *could* have been using. For example, if you are inept in court the appeals court might say "you may have been faking ineptness to make the jury feel sorry for you."

The bottom line, the easiest/surest way to prove "ineffectiveness of counsel" is to show that the counsel failed some "bright line" rules, like failing to file papers in a timely manner. Virtually anything done (or not done) at trial can be written off as 'tactics'. And I should point out that as usual 'jurisdiction matters', what is ineffectiveness of counsel in the 5th federal district is often very different from that in, say, the 10th federal district.

Bored is just what we need; another greedy, self serving ambulance chaser who can't form a sentence or express a thought. Probably a sociopath.

Americafirst, keep saying that until you need to plan your estate, get in a car accident or have someone break a contract with you.
You don't even know what type of law I'm interested in.
But, I'm not offended, I knew what I was getting into and I also know that people will hate me until they need my help. : )

BRF If the Def counsel didn't make appropriate discovery demand and/or evidentiary motions (i.e. Bill of Particulars, previous statements, exculpatory evidence, plea deals motion to suppress, redact etc) it would be hard to argue that he did an acceptable job. That said, counsel's trial performance rarely supports an "ineffective assistance" appeal. There's a death penalty case in Texas where defense counsel would nod off for substantial amounts of time after a liquid lunch but the Court of Appeals down there did not find that it rose to the level of "ineffective". Of course, that's Texas.

I am a lawyer and I do criminal defense. Going on the little information that was given in this article I'm guessing that Sullivan admitted to his defense lawyer that he did rape the woman. The defense lawyer tried to bargain for a "short" jail term (something under 10 years). Due to the severe violence involved in this particular rape and that it basically arose out of a felony (burglary) and that Sullivan had a prior felony convictions, the district attorney could not offer much of a deal or sentencing promise. Defense attorney and Sullivan say "hell we don't have much to lose by having a trial, maybe we'll get lucky".

At trial, defense attorney does not put Sullivan on stand for obvious reasons, and proceeds to halfheartedly crossexamine prosecution witnesses. He should have asked the witnesses whether they were offered lighter sentences after they agreed to testify, but otherwise the defense attorney probably didn't care a whole lot because his client was an F-ing monster. Was he suprised by the sentence? Probably. He probably figured the judge would give Sullivan something around 10-25 years. But at the end of the day, the defense lawyer goes home and says to himself "hey, that scumbag brutally raped a 75 year old woman after he burglarized her house, I ain't going to shed a tear for him."

That's how it is sometimes for a defense lawyer. You win at trial and people say you're a scumbag for helping put a criminal back on the street. You lose and your client starts crying about ineffective counsel.

Just make sure you get paid all the money up front! That makes it a little more worth the aggravation.

You're the law student. Why don't you go to westlaw, search for "ineffective assistance of counsel" in FL-CS-ALL and figure out what the rule is?

I know what the standards are and I'm writing an appellate brief for one of my classes involving ineffective assistance of counsel. I have access to my own opinion; I just wanted to see what other people had to say.

If the lawyer did what you said, then he deserved to be suspended. Even fucking monsters deserve to be represented properly. Hopefully, they will be represented properly and lose.

I know what the standards are and I'm writing an appellate brief for one of my classes involving ineffective assistance of counsel. I have access to my own opinion; I just wanted to see what other people had to say.

Hopefully your opinion is "obviously not".

Well, with the few facts in the article,if the argument ever came up, I thought it was just under the "tactics"

Please tell me where you you practice so I can report you to the local bar association and NEVER go there.

Please tell me where you you practice so I can report you to the local bar association and NEVER go there. Who are you talking to?