There's an argument that the FOFF's maximalist legal strategy of "deny everything" got him convicted. So did his refusal to ask for a misdemeanor instruction.
I saw that play out decades ago when a defendant refused to ask for a manslaughter instruction, believing that if the state didn't prove murder, he'd walk. The jury believed that he killed the victim, so, their only option being murder 2 (or higher), they convicted him on murder 2.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Can FOFF potentially argue ineffective counsel on an appeal at some point because the misdemeanour option was skipped?
He can argue it, sure. Doesn’t mean that the appellate court has to buy the argument.
Post a Comment