Is is logical that Feldman would advise his client of the poor prospect for appeal?
Then to ask his client to consider confessing during the penalty phase, asking for his life to be spared, because he was in an alcohol induced blackout during the murder, and due to lack of capacity, he couldn't have pre-meditated?
Then to ask his client to consider confessing during the penalty phase, asking for his life to be spared, because he was in an alcohol induced blackout during the murder, and due to lack of capacity, he couldn't have pre-meditated?
It's a fine line Feldy has to advise DW on. He has to be honest about his chances for appeal, but on the other hand, he wants to hold out some hope. So, they will go over the issues they have to argue (& they do have issues, I just don't think they'll ultimately work) and Feldy will try to be honest but also try to give it a bit of spin to encourage DW not to give up hope.
As for advising DW to confess, who knows? He might. DW stooped to blame his son, so I don't think any tactic is beyond either DW or Feldy.
As for the "blackout" issue, I've heard other people say what you say about blackouts but I don't think it is accurate. All a blackout means is that your brain has stopped recording. It's not that you've forgotten what happened, it just totally is not recorded in the brain. But I don't believe blackouts have anything to do with premeditation. Lots of people with drinking problems have blackouts after-the-fact, but they are performing quite normally at the time. Well, they might appear to be a little tipsy, but they are still acting and thinking like themselves. I don't think a blackout does or should preclude a finding of premeditation.