376
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 20 Mar 2024
376 points (98.7% liked)
Not The Onion
12588 readers
658 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
"His defense attorney, Matt Fregi, said he harbored “no ill will toward” his client, who had already cycled through several attorneys before him. “Nothing serious,” he said of his injuries. “Everyone thought it was a lot more serious than what it was.”"
That's a cool lawyer
Better call Matt
The radar technician? Dude, Matt straight up sucks.
Matt's more of a sonar kind of guy
https://youtu.be/FaOSCASqLsE?t=235
Are you suggesting that he'll purposely do a bad job? That sort of thing could get him disbarred.
No, he'll defend it fully to his duty so that the defendant can't claim lawyer incompetence.
Sorry, I'm not following. You mean the defendant is fucked and his lawyer he stabbed will try to get revenge on him?
This is complete nonsense.
IANAL, but: It circles back to the right to fair representation.
Say he's convicted, but at a later court, claims "After my totally involuntary psychotic episode, now verified by multiple behavioral psychologists, my lawyer held my unintentional actions against me and did a demonstrably poor job in the remainder of the case. I deserve the right to a fair trial."
That COULD be enough to get the case declared a mistrial and re-scheduled.
But there's also a billion reasons you can make an appeal. Most of which have nothing to do with that. Also, being able to make an appeal is a low bar. Most criminal convictions can be appealed...the chance of that appeal overturning the conviction remains low.
Are you saying you think a defense attorney's job isn't to do their best to defend their client?
There could be issues with witnesses or evidence that wasn't handled properly. The attorney could point out all of those flaws in order to best defend their client. That of course would leave the defendant with nothing to try to apply with. A less thorough attorney might not find those issues.
OK, but your previous post says:
Do stand by what you said about defense attorneys not "there to get their clients out of trouble?"
Yes, they are there to present eveey possible defense to the alligatons even if the client is clearly guilty. Reasons for appeal could include improper handling of evidence, interviewing witnesses improperly, or jury issues. If the attorney catches those and brings them up at trial, then they can't be used during an appeal in order to get the client of on a technically.
You're really arguing that a defense attorney's job isn't to get their client out of trouble (or in other words, defend them)? Do you realize how ridiculous that is?
https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/defending-guilty-people
From your link:
From your previous post:
Their job is specifically to get their clients out of trouble.
It's to provide the best defense possible, there's a difference.
This should not be hard to understand.
The police find that man A kills man B. A is now the defendant in a criminal trial. The job of A's lawyer is to introduce facts that improve the outcome of the trial. Sometimes, that's fighting because there isn't enough evidence available to assert that man A actually killed man B. Other times, it's getting their client to plead guilty because it's the easiest thing to do in a case that they're guaranteed to lose. Other times, it's to get a lesser sentence because B was abusive to A and A couldn't escape. It could be that A was acting in self defense.
Removing all nuance and saying that the one and only goal is to get their clients out of trouble is incorrect. Not every defendant is guilty, and not every criminal needs the maximum punishment.
I bet that attorney has so much good will for his client that he will give the best defense even though his client is a-hole.