Us V Armstrong 116 S. 456

1210 Words5 Pages
On appeal, the court should rule against the defendant, Dirty Dan, in his motion that he was the subject of selective prosecution. The government won a conviction against him on charges he ran a transition house in a sex trafficking operation. The legal issue at hand in the defendant's motion is he contends that he was the subject of selective prosecution. However, an analysis of the rules of law and the facts of the case will dispute Dan's claims. The rule of law can be set forth as follows. In United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 116 S. Ct. 1480, 134L.Ed.2d 687 (1996) the court defined selective prosecution as being "...not a defense on the merits to the criminal charge itself, but an independent assertion that the prosecutor has…show more content…
The issue the defendant is arguing before the court is ineffective assistance of counsel. It based on the rule of law contained within the assistance of counsel clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. This right is not expressly granted but rather inferred from the context by which the amendment was written. It advises "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." This right allows for a defendant to have an attorney who is considered competent; however, it does not mean the defendant must receive the very best defense possible. The courts have further delineated this rule of law and determined that legal counsel will not be found to be ineffective simply because certain legal tactics were used or not used. Additionally, in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) the court found the defendant must satisfy a two-part test to prove he received infective assistance of counsel. First he must show that (1) the performance of counsel was deficient and fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and (2) the outcome of the defendant's case would have been different had it not been for this

More about Us V Armstrong 116 S. 456

Open Document