Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

The video discusses the impact of neuroscience on the American judicial system, particularly in death penalty cases. It highlights the importance of investigating neuroscientific evidence to avoid claims of ineffective legal counsel. The video explains the high standards required to prove ineffective assistance of counsel and the role of brain abnormality investigations in legal defense. It also covers strategies to safeguard against such claims by demonstrating reasonable trial strategies.

What is one reason defense counsels are compelled to investigate neuroscientific evidence in death penalty cases?

• To comply with new legal regulations

• To increase the chances of a plea bargain

• To avoid being labeled as ineffective legal counsel

• To ensure a fair trial for the defendant

What must be proven to succeed in an ineffective assistance of counsel claim?

• The defendant was innocent

• The counsel's performance was deficient and prejudiced the case outcome

• The trial was unfair

• The counsel was inexperienced

Why is it difficult to prove the second part of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim?

• The jury's decision is always final

• There is usually enough evidence to support the original verdict

• The defendant must prove innocence

• The counsel's experience is not considered

What has been found to be ineffective assistance of counsel in recent cases?

• Failing to file an appeal

• Failing to present any evidence

• Failing to investigate potential brain abnormalities

• Failing to call witnesses

What is a reasonable trial strategy regarding neuroscientific evidence?

• Ignoring it completely

• Investigating it but choosing not to introduce it

• Always introducing it at trial

• Never investigating it