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?
Maybe a review by the State Bar.
Unless he is rich enough.
Joe(then, nothing)Nation
@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.
@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?
@gollum,
The lawyer sleeping during the trial might be considered ineffective, unless you are in Texas.
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.
@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
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace