Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Remember, this lawyer's action was part of a vigorous defense: He was trying to save the client from the death penalty.


> Directly contradicting his client's instructions, he suggested that McCoy suffered from diminished mental capacity and should therefore only be convicted of second-degree murder. But as the prosecutor would soon explain to the jury, that defense was legally unavailable to McCoy because Louisiana only allows a diminished capacity argument if the defendant has pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity. It was one of many mistakes English appears to have made during the trial.

Seems like this might be a boutique definition of "vigorous defense."


Hey, deliberately setting your client up for a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel could be considered a vigorous, even self-sacrificing, defense approach, though it's quite unorthodox (as well as both unethical and unlawful.)


There's a gap here that the lawyer (and the expert quoted) is talking about. At some point, you are menally impaired enough that the state should treat you differently. You are incapable of knowing right from wrong. But just before that point, there are a ton of folks who are severely impaired who might either wish self-harm or take actions that consistently harm themselves. How should we treat those folks?


He was judged competent to stand trial, though. If he wasn't, it seems like the problem is with the way that determination is reached, not in his not taking his lawyer's advice.


Is there a difference between "standing trial" and managing your defense? If so, people could fall into the cracks. I think that's what the article is getting at. If not, then either you're able to stand trial or you aren't. If so, you should be able to make whatever decisions you'd like.

(I'm a big lover of freedom, so I'm in the second camp. If you're able to stand trial you're able to plea anything you'd like. But I guess there's some question here because of the public's desire not to let anybody be put to death by the courts that might have avoided it with a better defense?)

If they decide this lawyer did the right thing then it seems to me like we've created three tiers where there used to be two: competent and incompetent. Now there's competent to stand trial, competent to stand trial yet incompetent to defend themselves, and completely incompetent to stand trial. Things would get a lot more complicated.


I don't think any such distinction is recognized legally.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: