What two things did the Strickland standard require to be proven in order to show that counsel was ineffective?

1. At the time that Rebecca Machetti is sentenced, Georgia has been wrestling with death penalty law. On page 215, two precedent cases are mentioned: Furman v. Georgia, and Gregg v. Georgia. Which of the two is anti-death penalty, and which is pro?

A. Furman is pro death penalty, and Gregg is anti

B. Gregg is pro death penalty and Furman is anti

C. They are both pro death penalty decisions

D. They are both anti death penalty decisions

Question 2
Another precedent case, Taylor v. Louisiana, is described on pages 216-17.  What was Louisiana arguing in this case?

A. that “the fair cross-section requirement of the Sixth Amendment was violated by the exclusion of women”
B. that excluding women from juries “served the state’s interest in maintaining stable family life”
C. that women should be able to “opt out” of being on a death penalty case
D. All of the above

Question 3
Why was Louisiana’s argument refuted?
A. Because it no longer represented society, since most women now work outside the home
B. Because the things that influence women’s decisions are the same as the things that influence men’s C. decisions
D. Because the Sixth Amendment doesn’t guarantee that a jury will mirror the community, only that the jury pool must be fair
E. All of the above

Question 4
On pages 221-22, the only judge who wanted to give John Eldon Smith a new trial wrote in dissent. Why was this judge upset by the outcome of the situation?
A. Because John Maree, the triggerman, will live and be eligible for parole
B. Because Rebecca Machetti, the mastermind of the murder, had a second trial and got off death row
C. Because John Eldon Smith’s lawyers didn’t raise his Sixth Amendment issue in time to get him a new trial
D. All of the above

Question 5
In Coy v. Iowa, the two young victims of sexual abuse were able to testify against the accused by being separated from the defendant, John Coy, who was on the other side of a one-way glass screen. What outcome did this lead to?
A. Coy was able to have his conviction reversed by the Supreme Court
B. Coy wasn’t able to see his accusers
C. The accusers weren’t able to see Coy
D. Answers A and C only

Question 6
Justice O’Connor wrote a concurring opinion on Coy v. Iowa, cited on pages 239-40. Justice Scalia wrote a dissenting opinion on a later Sixth Amendment case on pages 241-42.  What are the differences between their views?
A. Justice O’Connor felt that Coy should have been convicted, but Scalia felt that children can too easily be persuaded to create “false memories” and testify against innocent people
B. O’Connor felt that children should have the right to confront accusers face to face, just as adults have, but Scalia felt that parents deserve more rights than children
C. O’Connor felt that Iowa’s decision hadn’t shown specifically that these girls were traumatized and needed the screen; however, it could be possible to protect witnesses from seeing the accused in a Constitutional way. Scalia felt that it was never acceptable to shield the witness from the defendant.
D. Answers A and B only

Question 7
What historical sources did the Supreme Court cite in its Coy v. Iowa decision?
A. President Eisenhower, William Shakespeare and the Roman governor Festus
B. William Shakespeare and the Bible
C. The Bible and Justice O’Connor
D. The Roman governor Festus and William Shakespeare
 

Question 8
The main difference between the Iowa Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Sixth Amendment’s Right To Confront and the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation was that the U.S. Supreme Court felt that Coy’s lawyers had not had a fair chance to cross-examine Kathy Brown and Linda Thompson.
A. True
B. False

Question 9
In the Sixth Amendment case In re Myron Farber, the right to compulsory process is explained, the rights which an accused person has to obtain witnesses and evidence in his or her defense. In this case, which of the other amendments we’ve read about also plays a major role?
A. The First Amendment
B. The Second Amendment
C. The Fourth Amendment
D. The Fifth Amendment

Question 10
In the In re Myron Farber case, what was the reason that Farber refused to turn over the evidence that might have helped convict “Dr. X” of murder?
A. He didn’t want to put himself at risk
B. He didn’t think the evidence was that important
C. He had collected the evidence in confidence
D. All of the above

Question 11
How did the Myron Farber case differ from the precedent case Branzburg v. Hayes?
A. The Branzburg case didn’t involve murder
B. Myron Farber’s sources were not doing anything illegal
C. Farber was not being called before a Grand Jury, as the reporter in Branzburg was
D.All of the above

Flag question: Question 12Question 122 pts
In the end, Myron Farber had to go to jail for contempt of court, and Dr. Jascalevich was convicted of murder.
A. True
B. False

 Question 13
In United States v. Cronic, accused check-kiter Harrison Cronic is appointed attorney Chris Colston to present his case. What is the main line of defense that Colston argues?
A. That Cronic never meant to write bad checks or commit fraud
B. That all the responsibility lay with Carolyn Cummings, whose signature was on all the checks
C. That the bank in Oklahoma had never lost any money due to the bad checks Cronic sent
D. All of the above

Question 14
Although the specific words aren’t in the Constitution, what idea is understood to be conveyed by the Sixth Amendment?
A. The idea that the “counsel” provided must be good
B. The idea that the trial process will be adversarial
C. The concept of a fair trial for the accused
D. All of the above

Question 15
Although there was always an acceptance of the right to counsel, there had long been a  question of how to judge the effectiveness of the counsel.
A. True
B. False

Question 16
The Supreme Court sent Cronic’s case back to Judge Eubanks for a hearing under the new Strickland standard. What two things did the Strickland standard require to be proven in order to show that counsel was ineffective?
A. That the counsel had made omissions in the trial, and that the counsel was prejudiced and adversarial, leading to an unfair trial
B. That the counsel undermined the process and prejudiced the defense, leading to an unfair trial
C. That the counsel did or omitted things that showed incompetence, and that these errors prejudiced the defense, leading to an unfair trial
D. All of the above