Sorry, my statement refers to the celebrity factor, not the richness-of-the-client factor. Lots of people with lots of money and "good" defense lawyers get convicted. Granted, it's harder, but it's mostly accomplished. Generally, most of the time -- leaving out anomalies like black celebrities in California -- a defense attorney is going to lose.
As I recall, you were talking about Peterson. You seriously think it was his attorney's fault? If so, stay tuned for Scotty's standard-defendant's post-conviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Care to bet whether he succeeds?
Considering that he Peterson convicted on 100% circumstantial evidence, yes I think his lawyers blew it. I don't see how the ineffective counsel argument would ever work in a case like this. No the prosecution was far better, and the jury ate it up. If he had a different jury and different lawyers? Maybe he would have gotten off.