Do you agree with him announcing that his client was guilty 11 days before trial?”
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.
“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...
Puckett said “Conviction was certain.” HELLO! earth to olddeck! When you are convicted you are found guilty. Competent attorneys do not announce their clients guilty without a plea bargain, odddeck.
Thank you for admitting that you agree with Puckett pleading Lakin guilty without a plea bargain. That shows you utter ignorance of competent legal practice.
Thank you for admitting that you agree with Sullivan who was exposed as a BO supporter earlier in this thread, olddeck.
I’m having serious doubts about your so called legal credentials, and I note with considerable suspicion your posting history, such as it is considering your rookie status.
Most lawyers on FR can and do enlighten us on their posts with actual legal arguments, citing law, fact, and the sources for their assertions. You seem to rely solely on ad hominim attacks and unsupported assertions. That sort of argument is reserved for us unwashed masses who have never entered the bar. But perhaps that’s just how you argue cases in front of Judge Chamberlain Haller out there in Pleasant County.
On the court martial I was on, we were there for sentencing only. He admitted guilt, with no plea bargain, which was good - hard to claim innocence when cocaine is found in your dorm room, your pocket and your urine.
We asked for guidelines. We were told what the maximum was, and specifically told it was up to us. We could take into account anything we thought appropriate. They refused to give us any other guidance of any kind.
That probably hurt the defendant, because he also admitted to stealing from others in his barracks and squadron, and we considered that to be worse than the drug use. In the end, we gave him close to the maximum, although no one would tell us how our sentence compared to others convicted of the same crimes.
Puckett is trying to minimize the damage done by the previous attorney. If he can convince the Board that Lakin THOUGHT he was behaving legally per the advice of his attorney, and only later realized he was not, then the sentence might well be lenient. If, OTOH, they believe Lakin did it as a political statement, including insulting his CMOH winning boss, then Lakin will get the maximum.
Just IMHO. I spent my career flying, not lawyering.
When your client not only is guilty of the allegations, but announced his attentions on YouTube, and previously provided hours of media interviews explaining why he purposefully disobeyed a direct order, then yes, conviction is certain. He was going to assert an AFFIRMATIVE defense. Did they cover those in the law school you (allegedly) attended? That affirmative defense was disallowed.
Puckett is trying valiantly to make lemonade out of the bushels of lemons he's been dealt. If he keeps confinement below 12-months, he's done yeoman's work, in my opinion. He had no hope of prevailing at trial on the charge that Lakin has already pleaded guilty to, no hope at all.
"That shows you utter ignorance of competent legal practice."
Says the guy who has been wrong about everything he said. I'm still waiting for the jury instruction to disregard "sympathy" for the accused. Have you had any luck locating that?
"Thank you for admitting that you agree with Sullivan who was exposed as a BO supporter earlier in this thread, olddeck."
I couldn't give a flip about Sullivan's personal political views, whatever they may be. You would be hard-pressed to find an attorney with more practical military appellate experience than Sullivan, or his co-contributor Matthews.