You say “I understand where Lakin’s defense attorney is going with this. I am inclined to agree with his approach.”
Please explain what you mean. What exactly about Lakin’s “lawyers’ approach” do you agree with?
Do you agree with him announcing that his client was guilty 11 days before trial?
Do you agree with him pleading his client guilty without a plea bargain?
Do you agree with him advising his client to waive attorney/client privilege?
Which part of his bizarre approach is it that you agree with?
Asked and answered. Puckett never acknowledged guilt. He stipulated Lind was right on the law in her previous denial of Lakin's affirmative defense.
"Do you agree with him pleading his client guilty without a plea bargain?"
Yes. Why do you want to litigate something you can't win, and in the process piss-off the members of the jury panel who would have to listen to your drivel? Officers don't like to have their time wasted, and that's especially true of bird colonels and above. Puckett is trying to respect the panel, hoping for a more favorable outcome at sentencing.
"Do you agree with him advising his client to waive attorney/client privilege?"
Yes. Again, Sullivan - who was actually in the courtroom, reports the exchange between DC and MJ this way...
He said the defense would be raising the legal advice given to LTC Lakin (probably during the sentencing case), so it would be better to address it during the providence inquiry than have to reopen the providence inquiry when the defense raised it later.
Gee, how about that? Clearly, Puckett is working towards sentencing here. Of course, as a guy who hasn't spent a minute practicing military law, this escapes you, apparently.