What kind of “lawyer” allows his client to testify to privileged information, olddeck?
“If you are going to defend against a claim by saying that you were relying on the advice of counsel when you did what you did (which is evidence that you were acting in good faith and without criminal intent), you have to waive the privilege in order to disclose the advice.”
387 posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2010 7:23:57 PM by Lurking Libertarian
More nonsense. The bad advice of Lakin’s lawyers does not mitigate his guilt in any way.
It is obvious that you two are ignorant of the law, but perhaps you have heard the saying that “Ignorantia legis neminem excusat,”, i.e. ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it.
Lakin waived his right to appeal when he plead guilty and the bad advice of his lawyers does not “mitigate exposure.” In fact, Puckett’s bad advice is increasing Lakin’s “exposure,” i.e., Lakin testified that Jensen advised him that “I can’t ethically advise you to disobey those orders.”
No one is saying it's mitigating his guilt, sport. What people are saying is that just maybe Puckett can create a sympathetic narrative in the minds of the jury panel members. More sympathy = more lenient sentence.
Really, this isn't all that complicated. This IS NOT like civilian federal criminal court where there are sentencing guidelines imposed by the legislature and delivered by the judge. Lakin will be ENTIRELY at the mercy of the jury panel - which was his choice, BTW.
You’re new. So I’ll give you a clue.
OldDeckHand and Lurking Libertarian are both attorneys. They know a little bit about the law.