25 ms·

I don't understand: doesn't any individual counsel serve at the discretion of its client, barring mental incompetence? Title sounds like clickbait. You don't ha

I don't understand: doesn't any individual counsel serve at the discretion of its client, barring mental incompetence? Title sounds like clickbait. You don't have the right to keep swapping out your county-appointed lawyer for a new one. It's a Hobson's choice.

fjsolwmv 9y ago
Yes title is deceptive, and contradicts the article. But your second statement is not accurate. The question is whether the defendant has the right to control his lawyers actions in court. Intuitively, the answer is obviously yes, but the lower courts disagree.
- pc86 9y ago
  They're not arguing that he didn't have the right to fire English, they're arguing that he could have done it earlier than just a few days before the trial, and the fact that he didn't shows he was trying to stall the trial rather than actually get the counsel he wanted. I happen to disagree with them but that's their argument.
- snuxoll 9y ago
  I'm having a hard time seeing how anyone could see the answer as "no". I hate hypotheticals, but let's do one here because the extreme helps frame potential issue. Let's say the man standing trial disagrees with the strategy of his counsel, he fires them and gets new counsel. Rinse and repeat, no counsel is willing to actually follow the clients wishes and put up a proper defense - this hypothetical defendant is literally unable to obtain counsel to help defend him in court. In reality, could he have likely found counsel willing to put up a defense? Likely. But factoring in financial burden or competence of his choice of counsel, it's entirely possible he would either A) be unable to pay for a more expensive lawyer actually willing to defend him and B) a lawyer he could afford is either unwilling to put up a defense or lacks experience to do it properly. I'm not a lawyer, but from a novice understanding of the American Bar Association's Model Rules of Professional Conduct not abiding by a clients decision to enter a Not Guilty plea (which I would take to include defending that plea) is unethical - likely to prevent the model problem I described above from occurring. Specifically Rule 1.2(a).
- lr4444lr 9y ago
  Sorry - I didn't follow. What's inaccurate, that you can't fire your lawyer if you're (already) found mentally incompetent? Is that actually common in most states? I find it hard to believe.
- jcranmer 9y ago
  But the answer is already "no," at least in some cases. You generally don't have a right to make frivolous defenses (e.g., I'm not guilty because the POTUS is a lizard person in a secret alien conspiracy and they're framing me to stop me from telling the truth), and courts have no obligation to aid you in such a defense. As an extension, you don't have a right to demand that your lawyer participate in a frivolous defense. If you concede to your lawyer that you committed a crime, then you can't insist that your lawyer profess your innocence in that crime to the court. What's at stake here is two issues: 1. Is the choice of whether or not to concede to elements of the crime (this isn't the same as entering a plea) one of the rights that defendants retain even with a lawyer? 2. Does the fact that this is a capital case color the decision? English's argument was that conceding to the murder could help reduce the sentence from execution, and that his duty to minimize his client's sentence trumps other concerns. Personally, the answer to the first question does seem to be "yes" to me, but the second question does give me some pause.
MaxLeiter 9y ago
FWIW, the lawyer did think the client was mentally incompetent
mannykannot 9y ago
It seems that the title has not been effective in baiting you into reading the article.
s73ver_ 9y ago
The lawyer was being paid by the defendant's parents. And the lawyer was attempting to save the client from the death penalty. As it is, nobody believed the defendant's story about a drug deal gone bad and being framed by the cops, so he was convicted anyway.

fjsolwmv 9y ago

Yes title is deceptive, and contradicts the article. But your second statement is not accurate. The question is whether the defendant has the right to control his lawyers actions in court. Intuitively, the answer is obviously yes, but the lower courts disagree.

pc86 9y ago
They're not arguing that he didn't have the right to fire English, they're arguing that he could have done it earlier than just a few days before the trial, and the fact that he didn't shows he was trying to stall the trial rather than actually get the counsel he wanted. I happen to disagree with them but that's their argument.
snuxoll 9y ago
I'm having a hard time seeing how anyone could see the answer as "no". I hate hypotheticals, but let's do one here because the extreme helps frame potential issue. Let's say the man standing trial disagrees with the strategy of his counsel, he fires them and gets new counsel. Rinse and repeat, no counsel is willing to actually follow the clients wishes and put up a proper defense - this hypothetical defendant is literally unable to obtain counsel to help defend him in court. In reality, could he have likely found counsel willing to put up a defense? Likely. But factoring in financial burden or competence of his choice of counsel, it's entirely possible he would either A) be unable to pay for a more expensive lawyer actually willing to defend him and B) a lawyer he could afford is either unwilling to put up a defense or lacks experience to do it properly. I'm not a lawyer, but from a novice understanding of the American Bar Association's Model Rules of Professional Conduct not abiding by a clients decision to enter a Not Guilty plea (which I would take to include defending that plea) is unethical - likely to prevent the model problem I described above from occurring. Specifically Rule 1.2(a).
lr4444lr 9y ago
Sorry - I didn't follow. What's inaccurate, that you can't fire your lawyer if you're (already) found mentally incompetent? Is that actually common in most states? I find it hard to believe.
jcranmer 9y ago
But the answer is already "no," at least in some cases. You generally don't have a right to make frivolous defenses (e.g., I'm not guilty because the POTUS is a lizard person in a secret alien conspiracy and they're framing me to stop me from telling the truth), and courts have no obligation to aid you in such a defense. As an extension, you don't have a right to demand that your lawyer participate in a frivolous defense. If you concede to your lawyer that you committed a crime, then you can't insist that your lawyer profess your innocence in that crime to the court. What's at stake here is two issues: 1. Is the choice of whether or not to concede to elements of the crime (this isn't the same as entering a plea) one of the rights that defendants retain even with a lawyer? 2. Does the fact that this is a capital case color the decision? English's argument was that conceding to the murder could help reduce the sentence from execution, and that his duty to minimize his client's sentence trumps other concerns. Personally, the answer to the first question does seem to be "yes" to me, but the second question does give me some pause.

MaxLeiter 9y ago

FWIW, the lawyer did think the client was mentally incompetent

mannykannot 9y ago

It seems that the title has not been effective in baiting you into reading the article.

s73ver_ 9y ago

The lawyer was being paid by the defendant's parents. And the lawyer was attempting to save the client from the death penalty. As it is, nobody believed the defendant's story about a drug deal gone bad and being framed by the cops, so he was convicted anyway.