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.
A blog by a "sucker" and a "loser" who served her country in the Navy.
If you're one of the Covidiots who believe that COVID-19 is "just the flu",
that the 2020 election was stolen, or
especially if you supported the 1/6/21 insurrection,
leave now.
Slava Ukraini!
Thursday, May 30, 2024
2 comments:
House Rules #1, #2 and #6 apply to all comments. Rule #3 also applies to political comments.
In short, don't be a jackass. THIS MEANS YOU!
If you never see your comments posted, see Rule #7.
All comments must be on point and address either the points raised in the blog post or points raised by commenters in response.
Any comments that drift off onto other topics are subject to deletion.
(Please don't feed the trolls.)
中國詞不評論，冒抹除的風險。僅英語。
COMMENT MODERATION IS IN EFFECT UFN. This means that if you are an insulting dick, nobody will ever see it.
Can FOFF potentially argue ineffective counsel on an appeal at some point because the misdemeanour option was skipped?
ReplyDeleteHe can argue it, sure. Doesn’t mean that the appellate court has to buy the argument.
ReplyDelete