I suppose that my last post might be criticized for not answering your questions.
I expect that Lakin’s counsel will point out in the sentencing phase as matters of extenuation and mitigation the deficiencies of his previous legal defense team. As a panel member, I would be somewhat sympathetic to this approach and would certainly take it into account when deciding on a proper sentence. That together with the story of his career of service to his country may help reduce his sentence. As competent military attorneys have pointed out, the Court Martial panel has a great deal of leeway when it comes to determining sentence. I have personal experience of how this works in real life.
Do you always evade questions when you are losing arguments?
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?