Abstract
The most perceptive criticism of Strickland may be a remark written one year before the Supreme Court decided the case: "Stating the test is the easy part, the problem is in giving meaning to the language." Strickland really does no more than define the boundaries of this issue, a task that perhaps had already been completed, albeit unofficially, by the lower courts. Uniform standards are nice. The disappointment that lingers in the aftermath of Strickland is that the case really does nothing to clarify the clouded and vague standards by which a significant constitutional right is protected; it is an example of judicial jabberwocky. The world of Lewis Carroll's Jabberwocky was one of axehandle justice, where heads rolled at the whim of the Queen of Hearts. Judicial jabberwocky of the Strickland type cannot long protect or guarantee the constitutional rights that distinguish the American system of criminal justice from the deadly randomness of a wonderland.
Recommended Citation
O'Brien, Michael Patrick
(1985)
"Judicial Jabberwocky or Uniform Constitutional
Protection? Strickland v. Washington and
National Standards for Ineffective Assistance
of Counsel Claims,"
Utah Law Review: Vol. 1985:
No.
3, Article 4.
Available at:
https://dc.law.utah.edu/ulr/vol1985/iss3/4