• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court rules for inmate whose lawyer conceded guilt

TU Curmudgeon

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
62,525
Reaction score
19,318
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
From the Associated Press

Supreme Court rules for inmate whose lawyer conceded guilt
​


WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a lawyer for a criminal defendant cannot override his client’s wish to maintain his innocence at trial, even if the lawyer’s aim is to avoid a death sentence.

The justices voted 6-3 in favor of Louisiana death row inmate Robert McCoy. He repeatedly objected to his lawyer’s decision to acknowledge that McCoy killed the son, mother and step-father of his estranged wife in 2008.

Lawyer Larry English said the evidence of McCoy’s guilt was overwhelming. English said his strategy was to seek a sentence of life in prison instead of death.

But jurors sentenced McCoy to death anyway.

COMMENT - I do wonder how much Mr. McCoy is going to get awarded when he sues Mr. English for "professional misconduct".
 
Seems like the correct decision. As long as the defendant is deemed mentally fit to stand trial such decisions HAVE to be up to the defendant.
 
"My client definitely killed that dude" doesn't strike me as a clever legal maneuver.
 
Deuce said:
"My client definitely killed that dude" doesn't strike me as a clever legal maneuver.
Click to expand...

I think the argument was "my client was in a fragile emotional state and lacked the intent to murder". He said the evidence was overwhelming, but hoped to avoid the death penalty. The client's actual defense was that the police were in a drug ring that wanted to frame him, and that Senator David Vitter could prove his innocence.

This may work out in the man's favor -- a second shot at pleading incompetence to stand trial.
 
dcsports said:
This may work out in the man's favor -- a second shot at pleading incompetence to stand trial.
Click to expand...

You may well have a point.

Besides, what's the worst result that he could achieve after a new trial - being sentenced to death?
 
When the manager tells you to bunt, you bunt. When the manager tells you not to bunt, you don't bunt.

Clearly Larry never played baseball.
 
Skeptic Bob said:
Seems like the correct decision. As long as the defendant is deemed mentally fit to stand trial such decisions HAVE to be up to the defendant.
Click to expand...

I dont think I could sum that up better.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
From the Associated Press

Supreme Court rules for inmate whose lawyer conceded guilt
​


WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a lawyer for a criminal defendant cannot override his client’s wish to maintain his innocence at trial, even if the lawyer’s aim is to avoid a death sentence.

The justices voted 6-3 in favor of Louisiana death row inmate Robert McCoy. He repeatedly objected to his lawyer’s decision to acknowledge that McCoy killed the son, mother and step-father of his estranged wife in 2008.

Lawyer Larry English said the evidence of McCoy’s guilt was overwhelming. English said his strategy was to seek a sentence of life in prison instead of death.

But jurors sentenced McCoy to death anyway.

COMMENT - I do wonder how much Mr. McCoy is going to get awarded when he sues Mr. English for "professional misconduct".
Click to expand...

While you are right on the facts, and the attorney is wrong in making decisions for the perp, he's not going anywhere:

Google Info Bot said:
Louisiana conducted its last execution in 2010. A federal court has barred the state from carrying out executions since 2014 in part because of difficulties in obtaining the drugs considered humane for lethal injections. Louisiana is one of 32 states with a death penalty. There are 72 people on death row in Louisiana.Apr 10, 2018
Click to expand...

Not to mention the death penalty is circling the drain in Louisianan anyway.
 
chuckiechan said:
While you are right on the facts, and the attorney is wrong in making decisions for the perp, he's not going anywhere:
Click to expand...

And the decision did NOT include a direction that he be released from custody.

chuckiechan said:
Not to mention the death penalty is circling the drain in Louisianan anyway.
Click to expand...

In which case he should be able to enjoy the damage awarded when he sues for "professional misconduct".
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
You may well have a point.

Besides, what's the worst result that he could achieve after a new trial - being sentenced to death?
Click to expand...

Great point. The worst has already happened, and he gets a do-over. The bad part is that we pay for both trials. Perhaps his new lawyer can get him to accept a plea bargain -- or get him declared incompetent.
 
dcsports said:
Great point. The worst has already happened, and he gets a do-over. The bad part is that we pay for both trials. Perhaps his new lawyer can get him to accept a plea bargain -- or get him declared incompetent.
Click to expand...

As far as Mr. McCoy is concerned, he can't actually lose.

As far as Mr. English is concerned, he's hooped.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom