Do You Have the Right to Plead Not Guilty When Your Lawyer Disagrees?

https://www.npr.org/2018/01/17/578479044/do-you-have-the-right-to-plead-not-guilty-when-your-lawyer-disagrees

92 164 9 years ago

I would certainly hope so.

"This is a very difficult issue," he says. "Obviously most of us would think that the lawyer should just do what's in the best interest of the client in the view of the lawyer."

That doesn't seem very "obvious" to me, any more than it seems "obvious" that a doctor should just go ahead and carry out a medical procedure he recommends after I refuse it.

jasonlotito2• 9 years ago

It's not that you are refusing a procedure as much as you are choosing a procedure that the doctor thinks will cause you more harm. I'm not saying this means the lawyer is right or wrong, just that the analogy wasn't quite right.

jerf2• 9 years ago

I don't think that was intended as an analogy, but another example of when no matter how professional someone may be, we do not force their decisions upon the people being affected.

emodendroket13• 9 years ago

As far as I can see, changing the plea midway through is more like an intervention. And further weakening the lawyer's position, it appears he flubbed the procedure in several ways while doing so.

tokenizerrr• 9 years ago

If you choose to have your hand cut off because you think it would be awesome, I'd hope your doctor would refuse to do it.

jhasse2• 9 years ago

What if my doctor wants to cut my hand off by I refuse it?

harryh2• 9 years ago

It's interesting to think about decisions that involve an action vs decisions that involve stopping an action.

  Doctor: undergo my recommended treatment or you will die
  Patient: no

  Patient: Doctor, please chop off one of my hands for no good reason
  Doctor: no

In the former we respect the rights of the patient, in the latter we do not. Kind of weird isn't it?

north_east_dev2• 9 years ago

But what about trans-abled people and their rights?

da_chicken2• 9 years ago

There are cases of body integrity identity disorder (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_integrity_identity_disord...) being treated by amputation. It's a rare condition, but the discussion about the ethics of voluntary amputation as treatment is quite extensive:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15948330 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19132621 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17115518

DanielBMarkham3• 9 years ago

I think you've hit on the nub of the problem: what "causes no harm" to the client in the lawyer-client relationship, and are lawyers supposed to act like doctors?

It's in the interests of the judicial system that each client is entitled to a vigorous defense on a level playing field. That's the only thing that keeps the system working (as broken as it is). It's in the interests of the clients to do various things. Those things do not necessarily involve a vigorous defense or the best possible outcome for them.

If I signed a paper absolving my lawyer from damages, then asked him to punch me in the nose, should he? I don't see why not. If I did the same thing with my doctor, should he? Absolutely not.

This is the study of ethics, that is, the types of behaviors that professionals expect of one another as part of their profession. Ethically, I think the lawyer felt he should enter and defend the guilty plea. Whether or not that is the correct ethical decision -- and whether or not that decision is in the best interests of the judicial system -- is the interesting part.

ams6110• 9 years ago

Your lawyer should advise you but ultimately follow your instructions. If he feels (or knows) you are guilty and you want to plead otherwise, he should decline to represent you.

brians2• 9 years ago

Surely if he knows you’re guilty, but they’ll never prove it, the question is more complicated?

mcguire7• 9 years ago

In this case, wasn't the lawyer a public defender assigned to the case?

Edit: the first was, the second was hired by the family, who filed that his client was indigent and he was to be paid from public defense monies.

basseq2• 9 years ago

Your lawyer should advise you but ultimately follow your instructions.

... or resign.

There are lots of instances in professional services where you simply have to say 'no'. If you're not willing or able to represent your client in the way they want to be represented, the correct response is, "I'm sorry, but I'll be unable to continue to advise and represent you on this matter."

In the doctor example above, the doctor will—and should—absolutely refuse to follow your instructions to cut off your arm. (If you are insistent, you can probably find someone in the body modification community to do it for you, though a) it's probably illegal for them to do so and b) don't confuse that with legitimate medical intervention.)

Balgair4• 9 years ago

I mean, the local Bar would have a lot to say about lawyers that don't do what the client tells them to do. And, at least in the Common Law system it is typical that lawyers will argue that guilty people are not guilty all the time. Like, the news is full of these types of cases. And the ethics of representing the guilty have been worked out pretty well by now; it's really necessary. Most Bar Associations are pretty strict and hand out disbarments all the time for scummy lawyers.

JustSomeNobody• 9 years ago

I do not want a lawyer that was either hired by me or assigned to me making decisions unilaterally for me. They are there to interpret the law for me and to present me options. I then choose what to do. If they still want to represent me, that's up to them.

philipodonnell4• 9 years ago

"This is a very difficult issue," he says. "Obviously most of us would think that the lawyer should just do what's in the best interest of the client in the view of the lawyer."

Absolutely freaking not. This is not how professional services works. I hope this is not actually an endemic perspective in the legal community?

stcredzero2• 9 years ago

This is not how professional services works.

That is highly contextual. A coworker of mine called that the "Physician <-> Prostitute Spectrum." Certain service providers will pretty much do whatever you pay them to. Other service providers will filter their request through their expert knowledge. This also depends on the nature of the request, of course. It's not like a Doctor is going to give you a sex change you didn't ask for, if things are working correctly.

Whether to plead guilty should be up to the client, unless they aren't competent.

nzealand• 9 years ago

It gets difficult when you are determined to be mentally competent to stand trial, but you are clearly not mentally competent enough to make legal decisions.

State psychiatric experts found McCoy mentally competent to stand trial.
McCoy suffered from diminished mental capacity
people who represent themselves in major criminal trials often have enormous mental health problems and imperception of reality.

It is a very, very high bar these days in order to be found mentally incompetent, and as there is no social safety net, the mentally incompetent are disproportionately prosecuted via the legal system.

mcguire7• 9 years ago

Perhaps yes, maybe no. Consider another case: the next time you have a head cold, go to your doctor and demand to have your left arm amputated.

Or go to an engineer or architect and ask them to design something manifestly unsafe.

One of the differences between a profession and a customer service job is telling the client "no" if the client is asking for something inappropriate.

jeffdavis• 9 years ago

Then say "no", don't say "yes" and do whatever you want.

Bartweiss4• 9 years ago

The defendant dismissed his first few lawyers, which is what should happen in this case. The suit is over his final lawyer, who rejected his direct instructions, announced his guilt to the court, and then sought clemency on a basis that wasn't even legally available.

This is more reminiscent of the doctor refusing to amputate your arm, and then instead cutting off your little finger while you ask him not to.

throwwwwaway94• 9 years ago

>"Obviously most of us would think that the lawyer should just do what's in the best interest of the client in the view of the lawyer."

I doubt the lawyer has his client's interests in mind all the time: A new trial with more money coming up, media exposure, "25 years is jail isn't that bad, could've been life," "if we wrap it up by Tuesday, I can still make for Jeff's birthday party" etc etc. Lawyers are human and representing clients is a business. The most important period in your life is just another trial to him.

Bottom line: Unless the lawyer is willing to do his client's time, he should be overruled by the person that really stands to lose, the client.

Balgair4• 9 years ago

If you see that happening, contact your local Bar Association. Example: https://www.sfbar.org/about/contact.aspx

sjg007• 9 years ago

The medical care one depends on agency of the individual, if it is an emergency and, if an adult, has a DNR or living will. Generally, adults can refuse care but the hospital/doctor/medical group will take the parent(s) to court for the benefit of a child. You see this from time to time when parents try to claim a non-medical exemption.

TheCoelacanth2• 9 years ago

If their client is unconscious and unable to communicate their wishes or is a child, then by all means let the lawyer use their own best judgement, but when the client is an adult who has been judged mentally competent, letting the lawyer override their client's express wishes is a disgusting infringement on their rights.

Bartweiss4• 9 years ago

Interestingly, the guy saying that is supporting McCoy and claiming that the lawyer does need to respect the client's wishes. He's just claiming that it's an unintuitive legal requirement, where the rest of us seem to think it's a blatantly obvious obligation.

rootusrootus2• 9 years ago

This seems scary. While the guy may be foolish to disregard his attorney's well-considered advice, it should absolutely be his choice on how to defend himself in court. Even if that means an inconvenient rescheduling of his trial.

ralmeida3• 9 years 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.

fjsolwmv4• 9 years ago

He 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.

mcguire7• 9 years ago

The 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.

rndgermandude• 9 years 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."

brians2• 9 years ago

Guaranteeing English more years of life, albeit on death row, while appeals continue.

rootusrootus2• 9 years ago

I 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.

JoeAltmaier4• 9 years ago

If your lawyer disagrees, simply say the words "you're fired" followed by "Not Guilty, Your Honor"

ralmeida3• 9 years ago

That’s exactly what the guy did, but there seems to be a gray area about that, explained in the article.

roywiggins2• 9 years ago

"Throughout the trial, McCoy kept interrupting his lawyer's concessions of guilt, even trying to fire him... Because McCoy did not try to fire his lawyer until just days before the trial, the state contends, he had let the lawyer dictate legal strategy."

So... either it's not that simple, or something else went wrong here.

JoeAltmaier4• 9 years ago

Oh! I'm speaking from white privilege. That would certainly work for me. Seeing the man, I understand.

(Not the video at the top of the article; the picture on the 2nd page)

http://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/lawyer-submits-gu...

cjensen• 9 years ago

It's not that simple. You can't go around firing your lawyers every time you feel like it and causing trial delays and mistrials. The state has a right to try you, and you cannot avoid that through shenanigans. Client had already had trouble and fired his Public Defender. Client had hired counsel and retained him without complaint until trial started.

If you allow shenanigans to stop a trial in process, you are essentially giving the Defendant veto power over a trial when it doesn't go his way.

At some point the Judge has to make the case happen. When and how is a tough question I'm pleased I don't have to answer.

matte_black2• 9 years ago

Not only do you have the right, I don’t think it’s even legal for your lawyer to force you to plead one way or another. They can only suggest.

jerf2• 9 years ago

This feels like a freshman law school essay problem, given after the class has just covered the nature of and reasons for our use of an adversarial system. In fact I suspect this will be showing up in such problems in the near future. We chose a system where lawyers are to do their best to defend their client, regardless, for various good historical reasons.

In this situation, I would accept a defense lawyer basically immediately resting their case, if they truly have nothing with which to defend their client. But standing in front of the jury and actively pushing the same content as a guilty plea would contain is going to far. Alas, there is not a law against someone being an idiot in court, it isn't even obvious how one could possibly write that law, and if the client insists on an innocent plea, at the very least the defense is obligated to not actively contradict that plea, even if all that leaves them to do is say nothing.

If you think prosecutors already have too much power, probably a pretty popular opinion around here, we certainly do not also want the defense to get into the prosecution game! Let the prosecution do its job, if it's so obvious what the verdict should be.

matte_black2• 9 years ago

The thing that should stop a defense lawyer from working against their client is the chance of it harming their business. In this case, maybe this lawyer just doesn’t want to be a lawyer anymore.

fjsolwmv4• 9 years ago

The title is an obvious lie. The lawyer did not pleqd guilty.

emodendroket13• 9 years ago

He told the jury the defendant was obviously guilty, which seems tantamount to not letting the guy plead not guilty.

Bartweiss4• 9 years ago

Apparently Louisiana is arguing "Because McCoy did not try to fire his lawyer until just days before the trial, the state contends that he had let the lawyer dictate legal strategy."

This is bizarre to me. They're not saying he didn't try to fire the lawyer, they're saying he did but it doesn't count. Can anyone explain that argument in any more detail?

lr4444lr3• 9 years ago

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.

fjsolwmv4• 9 years 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• 9 years 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• 9 years 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).

lr4444lr3• 9 years 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• 9 years 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• 9 years ago

FWIW, the lawyer did think the client was mentally incompetent

mannykannot• 9 years ago

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

s73ver_6• 9 years 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.

fjsolwmv4• 9 years ago

The title is deceptive clickbait. The actual question is how much right the defendant had to block or cancel his lawyers' official actions (both public defenders and his own lawyers) he disagrees with before he fires them.

Thanks lawyer did block a not guilty plea (obviously since the case went to trial); the lawyer told the court the client was guilty during the trial, which was the lawyer's opinion.

I frequently find NPR rather biased in misrepresentation of details in its articles.

haZard_OS• 9 years ago

I'm afraid I don't follow your reasoning here. Can you explain what you mean by NPR showing bias in this article?

rrggrr• 9 years ago

A wealthy defendant wouldn't find themselves in this predicament because expert testimony would've been found to testify the defendant was insane. A plea deal would have been struck so the prosecution could avoid the expense of a lengthy trial and dueling expert witnesses. And, most defense counsel would have gladly argued the defendants innocence assertion to the last penny. Its a 6th Amendment case, but 14th Amendment issues haunt this case and many like it.

Filligree• 9 years ago

The insanity defense isn't used nearly as much as you seem to think it is, and never to the defendant's benefit. Do you think mental hospitals are nice places?

It isn't a "get out of jail free" card. It's a "stay in mental hospital instead, probably longer" card. Insanity pleas exist because the purpose of the justice system is, in principle, to improve society -- not to punish -- and prisons are in any case not equipped to incarcerate the insane.

gjmarsh2• 9 years ago

Yes. In fact the Judge is very deliberate in asking that you want to plead guilty and were not coerced into doing so. At least in Federal Courts they have an entire, what appears to be prepared list of questions they ask just to make sure it is your will.

Bjartr• 9 years ago

If I understand correctly, it's more a script that gets followed than a genuine inquiry https://www.popehat.com/2017/05/08/the-elaborate-pantomime-o...

gjmarsh2• 9 years ago

Might depend on the Judge. I have witnessed Judges ask "You understand what you are doing, this will never go away, etc". Genuine inquiry to make them comfortable that the defendant knows precisely what they are doing. But you are correct, there is also a scripted line of questioning.

pdabbadabba• 9 years ago

I can confirm that at least some judges take it seriously. The judge I clerked for paid careful attention every time, looked for nonverbal hints that the defendant had reservations, asked follow-up questions and, in at least one case that I saw, adjourned so that the defendant has more time to think it over and discuss with his lawyer.

logfromblammo5• 9 years ago

To make a long story short: black man in Louisiana.

The defense attorney's decision to relieve the prosecutor and jury of the burden of establishing guilt by unilaterally proclaiming it against the wishes of the defendant and contrary to the "not guilty" plea seems so incredibly irresponsible that I think disbarment should be considered.

Indeed, the judge should have paused the trial at that moment to have a little discussion with all the lawyers about what happens to people that intentionally try to cause a mistrial in their court.

I am not a lawyer, and I am not familiar with how they police their own, but if I were working for someone that wanted me to deploy untested software full of bugs and security holes straight to production, I would restrict my efforts to vigorously attempting to talk them out of it, resigning, or just doing exactly as they asked. I definitely would not independently publish a proof-of-concept malware designed to exploit said bugs and security holes. If someone is aiming a gun at their own foot, you do not stop them from doing it by blowing off their entire leg with a bigger gun, loaded with dum-dums.

s73ver_6• 9 years ago

The defendant was facing the death penalty, and their only defense was that they weren't there, and the whole thing was a setup by cops because he had information on them being drug traffickers. The lawyer was attempting to save his client from the death penalty, which is the best he thought he could do given the circumstances.

logfromblammo5• 9 years ago

The venue being Louisiana, I find the defense's claim alleging that corrupt cops framed up a black patsy to be not entirely implausible. But it is more likely that if they were corrupt drug traffickers, and they wanted to discredit or otherwise silence him, they would have just killed him outright and placed a drop weapon next to the body.

I am not familiar with the evidence presented at trial, but I am familiar with several investigative journalism reports that partially reveal some of the tactics and practices used by corrupt cops and prosecutors to secure convictions of apparently innocent people. Of course, the jury would have been made up of people who are not quite so skeptical of the emissaries from justiceland, and I'd wager they are ignorant of such tactics. So it isn't surprising that the defense attorney was desperate.

By the way, it certainly sounds like the guy is guilty, but he does have a right to an adequate defense. On further investigation, the parts of the story where he tried to hang himself with a bedsheet prior to extradition, and where ballistics experts determined conclusively that the recovered bullets were fired from a particular model of weapon seem very suspicious to me. The former is strongly correlated (in my mind) with police beatings and the latter is CSI voodoo, like bite mark evidence.

mcguire7• 9 years ago

The details of the case argue against simple summaries.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/16-8255...

notahacker• 9 years ago

By the sounds of it the circumstances make it quite hard for the state to argue that he was given effective assistance by counsel, since it appears the counsel was not only unwilling to follow the defendant's strategy and unwilling to stand down from the case but also the only argument he was willing to make for his client was ruled legally inadmissible, meaning his only contribution to the case was to render the defendant's preferred line of defence impossible and argue for his conviction.

philipodonnell4• 9 years ago

You have a good point. Even if you set aside all the stuff about the client and the lawyer disagreeing, if your only strategy was ruled legally inadmissible then you did a pretty poor job, whether it was your client's idea or yours.

Bartweiss4• 9 years ago

Certainly the duty of care ought to be in full force when one is acting against a clients wishes. Ignoring an illegal defense in favor of a legal one might be reasonable; ignoring an unlikely defense in favor of an illegal one looks like a clear absence of assistance of counsel.

pharrington• 9 years ago

Offhand, I wonder what the ramifications would be if a Supreme Court would be able to rule that the legislative branch resolve an apparent contradiction in laws.

Zenbit_UX• 9 years ago

Plot twist: His lawyer is brilliant and did this on purpose to cause a mistrial years down the line knowing his client had no other alternatives.

anigbrowl2• 9 years ago

Arguably happens a lot already

pmcollins• 9 years ago

The problem is that if the lawyer's gambit had worked, the client would have happily benefitted from the result. Since it didn't work, he's crying foul. Private profits, public losses (or something). If this worked, it would be a novel strategy to try something radical like this, see if you benefit, and if you don't, claim the lawyer was not acting with your consent.

mcguire7• 9 years ago

Fillings from the case make interesting reading:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/16-8255...

analog312• 9 years ago

I wonder if there's a problem with the whole "plea" thing, mixed up with the death penalty. What if there were no pleading, every case went to trial, and the penalty was the one assigned to the circumstances of the case at the beginning of the trial. This would get rid of the abuse of plea bargaining, and the need for the defendant to strategize based on trying to manipulate the penalty.

Even if we keep the pleading stage, a guilty plea should require the approval of the judge based on his evaluation of the evidence. It should not be possible for the police to get away with punishing someone without having to present their evidence. The evidence should be submitted to the court before the pleading begins.

mcguire7• 9 years ago

I believe it does require judicial approval. I don't have references off hand, but I recall cases where judges have nullified deals.

Sangermaine• 9 years ago

What if there were no pleading, every case went to trial, and the penalty was the one assigned to the circumstances of the case at the beginning of the trial.

This is a misunderstanding of how things work and is begging the question. Part of the trial is determining what punishment is appropriate based on the facts and arguments presented in the trial. Indeed, determining the "circumstances of the case" is at the core of what a trial is.

analog312• 9 years ago

That's fair. Perhaps what I'm thinking of is how to prevent abuse of plea bargaining -- allowing the police to bypass examination of the evidence by threatening an extreme punishment.

thephyber2• 9 years ago

This would get rid of the abuse of plea bargaining

I would argue that there is little or no "abuse" of plea bargaining.

The current system has evolved from a fitness function which encourages more laws, fewer prosecutors and judges per capita, less time per defendant to plead their case in a courtroom, and more incentive for prosecutors to appear to "win" the vast majority of their cases.

There is no place in that fitness function for justice or ethics. Those who appear to get those luxuries get them entirely because they have the means to leverage the legal system (usually before/during the crime, not after the arrest).

It's unrealistic to expect that mere mortal humans to know all of the laws that govern them (I doubt most people have read more than a paragraph of state laws that govern them), let alone to understand them with the expertise of a lawyer.

There's not enough resources for cities or states to allow more than ~5% of people to plead innocence in a courtroom so the plea bargaining system isn't being "abused", it's a necessary evil in order for the extremely expensive society we have.

throwwwwaway94• 9 years ago

>Do You Have the Right to Plead Not Guilty When Your Lawyer Disagrees?

NO, if the lawyer does the time for me. Otherwise, F him, it's my life

ErrantX• 9 years ago

If the lawyer believes his client is not compos mentis, to the extent he is damaging his own right to a fair trial, surely he a can file some sort of motion to relieve him of his rights?

This not being possible is, I assume, the only excuse for what the lawyer has done here?

amarkov• 9 years ago

Correct. The lawyer in this case asked for permission to withdraw, and the court wouldn't let him. (The court wouldn't agree to reschedule the case, and the defendant neither found another lawyer nor agreed to waive his right to a lawyer.)

mnm1• 9 years ago

It's really not even surprising anymore. When you don't have a court/justice system that works, any ridiculous situation is possible. And somehow we as citizens are supposed to have faith in a system that leads to this outcome? What's the incentive for the defendant to stick to the rules now? If he had the chance, why wouldn't he bribe or even have witnesses/jurors murdered to advance his defense in a system that does not even respect his plea? The absurdity of our laws and courts is beyond comprehension.

anigbrowl2• 9 years ago

IANAL but yeah. It seems to me that the onus here was on English to withdraw from the case. Once the guy was ruled competent it was the defense lawyer's moral obligation to do the best he could with the version of the facts offered by the defendant, however lacking in credibility that was.

I don't know about ethics standards in the practice of law in Louisiana particularly. Every state is different and Louisiana seems a bit more different than most because of the influence of the French legal tradition.

The lawyer here is (poorly) seeking to preserve his client's rights to as a possibility-mentally-ill person, notwithstanding the earlier competency findings. This is not so uncommon in death penalty trials, and again competence adjudication seems to vary by state. But in seeking to preserve his client's life, he's sacrificing his client's agency, which is a sort of liberty interest most defendants want to retain even if they are in physical custody.

It might seem to the lawyer that his client has a death wish and just can't bring himself to admit it, and suicidal intent is de facto evidence of incompetence in many jurisdictions. Also, it's not unusual for a defendant to turn on the attorney post-conviction; eg if English argued the defendant's version of events, and he was convicted and sentenced to death, the new lawyer might have sued him anyway by arguing 'my client is obviously crazy and yet English helped him to throw his life away in front of the jury instead of getting him the help he needs."

It's yet another reason I think we should get rid of the death penalty.

Do You Have the Right to Plead Not Guilty When Your Lawyer Disagrees?

Related Stories