3 ms·
Well-considered advice? The lawyer completely messed up and more or less guaranteed a first degree murder conviction and a very harsh sentence that goes with it
by rndgermandude 9y ago
Well-considered advice? The lawyer completely messed up and more or less guaranteed a first degree murder conviction and a very harsh sentence that goes with it:
"Finally, English embarked on a strategy of conceding his client's guilt, in hopes of avoiding the death penalty. Indeed, in his closing argument, he told the jury that not only was his client guilty but that he had taken any burden for this conclusion off of the prosecutor and the jury."
"Directly contradicting his client's instructions, he suggested that McCoy suffered from diminished mental capacity, and should therefore only be convicted of second-degree murder. But as the prosecutor would soon explain to the jury, that defense was legally unavailable to McCoy because Louisiana only allows a diminished capacity argument if the defendant has pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity. It was one of many mistakes English appears to have made during the trial."
- brians 9y agoGuaranteeing English more years of life, albeit on death row, while appeals continue.
- algorithmsRcool 9y agoEnglish is the Lawyer, McCoy is the defendant.
- _jal 9y agoIrrelevant side-effect. Or are you arguing that was intentional strategy on the part of the lawyer? In any case, a lawyer is supposed to act as one's agent, and in this case, it certainly appears that the attorney in question was acting incompetently when not directly contradicting the defendant's desires. As frequently happens, this will probably turn on what amounts to courtroom etiquette. Should the defendant have fired the lawyer "earlier", given no clear definition of "earlier"? Edit: was told my irony was too subtle. That last sentence could be rewritten as, "should a defendant whose council is not actually representing the defendant correctly be required to sufficiently understand legal procedure as to accurately intuit undefined deadlines that have emerged through caselaw on their own, from prison, in order to replace the rogue council?" Kafka would only grade this a C, I think.
- rootusrootus 9y agoI suppose maybe it was an overstatement to suggest it was well-considered. I was thinking more along the lines that a guilty plea to take the death penalty off the table in what appears to be a slam-dunk case is definitely a solid piece of advice. But I think I misunderstood, it appears that what he did was plead innocent and then concede that he was guilty, which did not have the benefit of sparing his life. Still, my conclusion is the same -- the defendant should always have the right to steer his own defense, and if his lawyer actually countermands him then it should be grounds for a mistrial. And disbarment of the lawyer IMO.