1
   

Incompetent Lawyer

 
 
gollum
 
Reply Tue 21 Aug, 2012 06:33 pm
A defendant is convicted of a crime at the conclusion of a criminal trial. He then appeals the verdict on the grounds that he had incompetent counsel and wins the appeal.

What if any thing happens to his original trial lawyer as a result of his successful appeal?
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Aug, 2012 08:15 pm
Maybe a review by the State Bar.

Unless he is rich enough.

Joe(then, nothing)Nation
Ticomaya
 
  3  
Reply Tue 21 Aug, 2012 11:20 pm
@Joe Nation,
Joe Nation wrote:
Maybe a review by the State Bar.

Doubtful. Claiming ineffective assistance of counsel on appeal is a fairly routine and normal attempt by criminal defendants, who are usually afforded a "free" appellate attorney. Even if their trial attorney was "ineffective," that does not necessarily mean any rules of professional responsibility were violated.
gollum
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2012 04:19 am
@Ticomaya,
Thank you.

What action (or failure to act) by a lawyer would be construed as "ineffective counsel" but should not result in any action against the him/her by the bar association and/or governmental agency?
parados
 
  2  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2012 06:12 am
@gollum,
The lawyer sleeping during the trial might be considered ineffective, unless you are in Texas.
jespah
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2012 07:36 am
Ineffective assistance of counsel also includes things like failing to present certain types of evidence, ask certain questions or object to items presented by the other side.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2012 09:30 am
@parados,
Quote:
Court observers said Benn seems to have slept his way through virtually the entire trial.

George McFarland’s case is still pending in the courts. The presiding judge said that the Constitution guarantees a defendant a lawyer, but it does not guarantee that the lawyer must be awake. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals upheld the conviction and sentence on direct appeal, McFarland v. State, 928 S.W.2d 482 (Tex. Cr. App. 1996), over a dissent by Judge Charles Baird, joined by Judge Morris Overstreet, which argued “[a] sleeping counsel is unprepared to present evidence, to cross-examine witnesses, and to present any coordinated effort to evaluate evidence and present a defense.” Id. at 527. The Court upheld the conviction and sentence again on post-conviction review. Ex parte McFarland, 163 S.W.3d 743 (2005). Judges Baird and Overstreet were no longer on the Court and there were no dissents.


Luckily the Federal courts saw it differently in 2010
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Incompetent Lawyer
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 12/02/2021 at 09:53:25