The following excerpt is from United States v. Brizan, CASE NO. 1:06-CR-59 (E.D. Cal. 2015):
Ground two asserts that it was ineffective assistance of counsel for her attorney not to advise her of her Fifth Amendment Privilege against self-incrimination as it related to the superseding information. Doc. 687 at 6. Petitioner claims the superseding information sought to hold her criminally responsible for failing to report to the authorities her own criminal conduct and, as such, violated her Fifth Amendment Right. "Where the alleged error of counsel is a failure to advise the defendant of a potential affirmative defense to the crime charged, the resolution of the 'prejudice' inquiry will depend largely on whether the affirmative defense likely would have succeeded at trial." Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59 (1985).
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.