About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


25 Law & Psychol. Rev. 81 (2001)
Characteristics of the Ideal Criminal Defense Attorney from the Client's Perspective: Empirical Findings and Implications for Legal Practice

handle is hein.journals/lpsyr25 and id is 85 raw text is: CHARACTERISTICS OF THE IDEAL CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY FROM THE CLIENT'S PERSPECTIVE: EMPIRICAL FINDINGS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR LEGAL PRACTICE Marcus T. Boccaccini* Stanley L. Brodsky** I. INTRODUCTION Although all criminal defendants have the right to effective legal counsel,' identifying the hallmarks of effective legal counsel is not as straightforward as it may at first appear. Re- search suggests that clients desire much more than just legal knowledge from their defense attorney.2 This Article presents an empirical study which sought to provide information about clients' perceptions of effective counsel by asking what charac- teristics experienced criminal defendants want in an ideal defense attorney, and how having an ideal defense attorney would impact their behavior in the attorney-client relationship. Part I of this Article sets forth introductory information which is necessary to set the context for the study. Part I begins by detailing a criminal defendant's right to the effective assis- tance of counsel. Next, research findings pertaining to defense * Marcus T. Boccaccini is currently a doctoral candidate in clinical psycholo- gy/psychology-law at The University of Alabama. M.A. 1998, The University of Ala- bama; B.S. 1995, Santa Clara University. ** Stanley L. Brodsky is currently a Professor of Psychology at the University of Alabama where he coordinates the Psychology-Law Ph.D. concentration. Ph.D. 1964, University of Florida; M.S. 1962, University of Florida; B.A. 1960, University of New Hampshire. The authors would like to thank Julie Atwell and Heather Moore for their assistance in collecting data. 1. See McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759, 771 n.14 (1970) ([T]he right to counsel is the right to the effective assistance of counsel.). See also Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 344-45 (1980); Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 70 (1942); Avery v. Alabama, 307 U.S. 444, 446 (1940); Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 57 (1932); Karen A. Covy, The Right to Counsel of One's Choice: Joint Representation of Criminal Defendants, 58 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 793, 815 n.12 (1983). But see Mor- ris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1, 13-14 (1983) (holding the Sixth Amendment does not guar- antee a meaningful relationship between an accused and his counsel). 2. See infra notes 24-67 and accompanying text.