Today David Michael Cantor a Phoenix Criminal Defense Attorney talks about a brief filed by the American Bar Association with the Supreme Court regarding ineffective council. This could dramatically effect how Post Conviction Relief is handled and help to reduce the time an innocent person spends in the justice system. In Arizona it is known as a Rule 32 Post Conviction Relief Petition.

Here is the story from the American Bar Association:
“A defendant’s fair trial right isn’t protected if he receives ineffective assistance of counsel at the trial stage and again at his first appellate opportunity to raise the claim, the ABA contends in an amicus brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court.

The ABA filed the brief (PDF) in a Supreme Court appeal by Luis Mariano Martinez, who was convicted of sexual contact with a minor in Arizona. The brief cites the ABA Criminal Justice Standards, according to a press release.

“Many states, including Arizona, designate post-conviction proceedings as the preferred or mandatory forum for litigating an ineffective of assistance of trial claim … for the first time,” the ABA brief says. “The ABA respectfully asserts that counsel representing a defendant at that proceeding should provide the same quality of representation—that is, effective assistance of counsel—as is constitutionally required of counsel at trial.”

Martinez claims his trial lawyer failed to object to inaccurate testimony by a prosecution expert about the reasons for victim recantations. He claims his appellate lawyer filed a notice of post-conviction relief saying she could find no colorable claims, and she didn’t tell him about the filing or his need to file a pro se petition within 45 days.

SCOTUSblog has called the cert grant in Martinez v. Ryan “a big deal in habeas law.””