12 ms·
The case in question is that he does, but he “chose” to not exert that right while it was available to him, so he delegated legal strategy to his lawyer. What s
by ralmeida 9y ago
The case in question is that he does, but he “chose” to not exert that right while it was available to him, so he delegated legal strategy to his lawyer. What seems to be being discussed (case is in the Supreme Court) is if he has the choice to revoke his decision or fire his lawyer at any time.
- fjsolwmv 9y agoHe didn't delegate his strategy. He hired counsel and counsel went beyond counseling and took over decision making without the defendant's consent, which isn't obviously legal.
- ralmeida 9y agoI understand the principle, and agree with it in general. In this particular case, though, the legal system understands he did delegate his strategy by delaying his change of lawyer in a way that could be interpreted as exploiting a loophole to keep his trial being delayed in order to avoid the death penalty. So, in one extreme, you have the right of the individual to choose how the counsel should act, and in another extreme, if you let an individual abuse that right, you create a loophole by which a guilty criminal can postpone their trial basically indefinitely. Basically, if this was software engineering, they found a strange behavior of the system, and are trying to define if this is a bug or a feature. That’s why the case is in the Supreme Court - it’s them who will decide if this is legal or not.
- mcguire 9y agoThe original change of lawyers resulted in nearly a year's delay of the trial. The judge warned English and McCoy that further delays would not be appreciated. As one of the appeal filings puts it, the right to swap out your representation is not absolute.