Whether a defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel?

Whether a defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel is a mixed question of fact and law, and is reviewed de novo. United States v. Baker, 850 F.2d 1365 (9th Cir.1988).

A criminal defendant is entitled to reasonably effective assistance of counsel. The right to effective assistance of counsel is the right of the accused to require the prosecution's case to survive the crucible of meaningful adversarial testing. When a true adversarial criminal trial has been conducted, even if defense counsel has made demonstrable errors, the requirements of the Sixth Amendment have been met. United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 656 (1984). Counsel is presumed competent. As such, the burden rests on the defendant to establish a constitutional violation. Id. at 658.

To prevail, a defendant's claim that counsel's assistance was so defective as to require reversal of a conviction must satisfy two tests. First, the defendant must show that counsel's performance was deficient. Second, the defendant must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense to such a degree as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).