Site Loader
Get a Quote

In 1988, Ronald Rompilla was convicted for the killing James Scanlon in first-degree murder. During Mr. Rompilla’s sentencing, Rompilla’s attorney accounted for some justifying evidence, but the jury panel found that the magnifying factors of the crime prevailed and sentenced Rompilla to death. Mr. Rompilla filed for post-conviction relief under a Pennsylvania statute claiming, inter alia, ineffective assistance of trial counsel. After being denied he applied for a writ of habeas corpus in federal court, renewing his claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted Mr. Rompilla’s appeal for relief, holding that the state post-conviction court had not applied the groundwork that the United States Supreme Court had developed in Strickland v. Washington during the penalty portion of the criminal trial, (Samaha, J. 2018, p 499). Mr. Rompilla had to prove that his previous counsel’s performance was not up to standards and was not fair, that Mr. Rompilla’s attorney’s insufficient actions give rise to an impartial chance that if his counsel had operated adequately, the results of the proceedings would have been aberrant. Moreover, holding that the right to counsel in capital cases is a fundamental right, and refusing that right to state defendants is a denial of due process within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Sixth Amendment allegations based on actual or constructive rejection of the assistance of an advocate altogether, as well as claims based on state conflict with the ability of an advocate/ counsel to deliver effective services to the accused, (Hess, Harr, Orthmann & Kingsbury (2017). The accused whose lawyer is incapable to aide with effective representation is in no better position than one who has no counsel at all. Sixth Amendment infringements based on the right to have an advocate in the accused corner is in protecting the fundamental right to a fair trial. The Strickland standard test is exactly what is required for adequate performance by counsel. Investigating its constructive adoption of mandatory duties, in which advocates/counsel must secure certain prosecution evidence to be constitutionally competent.

Post Author: admin