Maryland v. Marzullo

Background

The case arose from a criminal prosecution involving the State of Maryland and Victor Marzullo, a defendant who claimed his lawyer’s help was constitutionally inadequate. A federal District Court found the lawyer’s performance adequate. The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit rejected the older “farce or mockery” test, adopted a new standard requiring representation within the range of competence expected in criminal cases, and reversed the District Court. Other federal appeals courts use different rules, producing a split among the circuits.

Reasoning

The central question was simple in everyday terms: how good must a criminal lawyer be to satisfy the Constitution’s guarantee of effective assistance? The Supreme Court declined to take the case. The Court granted the defendant permission to proceed without paying fees up front, but it denied the petition for review. By refusing review, the Court left the conflicting standards in place and did not decide which test should apply nationwide.

Real world impact

As a result, different courts will continue to use different tests for lawyer competence, so criminal defendants—especially those who cannot afford private lawyers—may receive unequal protection depending on where their case is heard. This denial is not a final decision on the constitutional rule; the Court could resolve the issue in a future case, so the law remains unsettled for now.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice White, joined by Justice Rehnquist, dissented from the denial and argued the issue is of fundamental importance and that the Court should resolve the circuit split to ensure consistent minimum standards for indigent defendants.