ATTORNEY PUNCHED BY DEFENDANT ALLOWED TO WITHDRAW, SECOND LAWYER HELD IN CONTEMPT

Finally, in the absence of a dictator, we don't have a "leader" available who "knows what to do."

Oh, we're going to have a dictator all right. In Venezuela, Chavez is beloved by the poor, ignorant masses. He curses like a sailor, points to a map on television to show them where he traveled last and tells them how many hours it took to fly there. They're grateful someone finally took enough interest in them to show them where Spain was on a map. We're quickly heading that way as our youth do NOT want to learn and no one has the backbone to make them.

So, we're producing people like "Shabazz". I had a girl go off on me yesterday after I tugged at her backpack handle to get her to move out of my door because I was trying to start class. She went beserk. Had to write her up. All she got was a few detentions. She should have been taken and worn out. Don't come at me with your self-righteous due process crap. You are either clueless or a liberal Democrat. I don't wish to read any more of what you might write, so don't bother.

If the judge follows this course, every Defendant who is facing life in prison or greater has every incentive to punch his lawyer in the face and get a mistrial. Six months in county lockup instead of prison, delay of sentencing, a psych defense and a basis to argue that he was denied a speedy trial and should be released. It's a Catch-22, and the judge has no other realistic choice.

If the PD sends over another lawyer, he has an ineffective assistance of counsel claim and likely gets a new trial. Plus the psych defense.

My point was that there is an amendment to the Constitution prohibiting involuntary servitude, and yet this lawyer is being sent to jail for refusing to do a job that jeopardizes safety. This isn't like a company that orders you to do a job, because all they can do is fire you if you refuse; they can't send you to jail.

You have a point. That's just the way it is, so I really don't consider it strange. They teach things like these in Ethics courses, and this is playing out pretty much the way the scenarios go.

If an attorney has a client like this, or one he knows is going to lie, we can't just stand up and tell the Court he's lying - we have to ask to withdraw and hope the judge lets us. If he doesn't, we have to let the witness go on, but not ask questions we know will result in a lie - i.e. ask a question like "What is your side of the story?" and sit down. That, or be held in contempt. It's a Catch-22 to be sure.

As for involuntary servitude, yeah, it kind of is. But once you agree to a representation, you are in for the haul unless the judge lets you out. Kind of like joining the army I guess. You can't quit in the middle if you don't like it. You are right that it is not fair, but the consequences of any other solution are much greater those other than the lawyer.

If I was in her place, I would do exactly as she has done, and go to jail. OTOH, if I was the Judge I would do exactly as he has done. I am sure neither of them like it, especially the judge.

I wanted to punch a lawyer who was representing me one time. (But I didn't) It was a non-criminal deal, and it became apparent that my lawyer and the other guy's lawyer were in cahoots on the thing.... and my lawyer was not representing my best interest.

Instead I stood up and told the judge on the record that it was my opinion that my lawyer was not representing my best interest.... and was in fact working against my best interest. And that I wanted to know how to file a formal complaint. :) It got pretty interesting after that.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.