Not all New York court cases unfold as justly they should. In some instances, defendants may be able to prove that a breakdown in the process led to unreliable or unfair results. If they can establish that their right to a fair trial specified by the Constitution’s Sixth Amendment was infringed upon, courts may revoke their guilty verdicts. These situations may be more relevant for defendants who are unable to hire a lawyer and who rely on court-appointed representation during a trial or appeal.
With the majority of claims involving inadequate representation, defendants have to prove two important facts. First, they must demonstrate evidence showing that their lawyer performed their duties insufficiently by making serious errors. They also need to show that the way their lawyers did their job predisposed the trial against them. This involves demonstrating the severity of their attorney’s mistakes and relating them to how they were denied fair trial.
Upon receiving claims by defendants who believe they have been wronged, courts review the way their lawyers advocated for them. Courts may automatically presume, however, that the lawyers only took actions that represented their clients to the best of their abilities.
When someone faces criminal charges, their ability to mount an effective defense plays a significant role in the outcome. Court officials, prosecutors and juries may be predisposed against certain individuals based on factors like their appearances or the specific charges brought against them, so it is important that criminal defense strategies account for such realities. In addition to refuting arguments made by the prosecution, the accused may have to call the validity of official records into question, challenge police procedures and gather their own evidence. Working with a lawyer could make it easier to mount a defense that covers more of these areas or prove that a prior defender unjustly failed to do so.
