yadler
New Member
Can a pro per appeal the jury's verdict based on inefective assistance of cousel?
yadler said:Can a pro per appeal the jury's verdict based on inefective assistance of cousel?
Well... the Sniper in Maryland just got himself convicted again. They say that a person who represents themself has a fool for a client! Personally, I think Susan's grandstanding trying to force the judge into limited conviction options. I think Scott Peterson has a better chance of using the Ineffective Counsel option, and even he has a snowball's chance!yadler said:Can a pro per appeal the jury's verdict based on inefective assistance of cousel?
BillyGoatGruff said:Jesus Christ on a sea beach woman, can't you tell by everything I've written that I think Susan Polk is a narcissistic sociopath? But I also think her husband, who was supposed to be trained to, you know, recognize these things, given his profession, was one too. Just because someone is the victim of a murder/crime doesn't make them a friggin' nice person/martyr/innocent. I think the only innocents in this case wee the sons and probably Susan's parents, who were apparently danced around for decades by both a mentally disturbed daughter and her husband/therapist.
yadler said:I am following the reports from "over there." I am speechless. She accused Horowitz,her former attorney of wanting to frame Dyskleskie (?) for the murder of his wife and having an affair with a prospective juror on the Polk case. She's like fly paper. Touch her anyway, shape or form, and you will be accused of the grossest, vilest vulgarity/ immorality that the human mind can think of. Horowitz's hands are tied by attorney/client privilege or he would retaliate.
yadler said:I thought that, what with the sparse information that coming out of that trial being what it is, I smelled something that has on her mind. Yesterday, she articulated it, tied it up in a ribbon and presented it as a cohesive package: "Jewish conspiracy." That includes poor Felix, his friends, the Mossad, 9/11 and now, the very judge herself.
I wallow in our freedoms and rights, but how is it possible that the law allows this pro per defense from an accused who is suffering from a mental condition that puts everyone around her in real danger?
Hmmm...That's a great saying!!BillyGoatGruff said:I'm reminded of the old saying; a sane man will on occasion doubt his sanity--the madman never does.
DITTO FROM ME---:clap:GrannyEdith said::clap: Well said Bobbisangel :clap:
I'd say there is a 50/50 chance of her losing it when the verdict is read. She is mentally disturbed yet not insane.izzyB said:bobbi - agree totally with you analysis.
and becba, had not thought about it but you are right. she is a time-bomb!
Becba said:I'd say there is a 50/50 chance of her losing it when the verdict is read. She is mentally disturbed yet not insane.
And what is up with a psychic being allowed to testify? You cannot prove or disprove beliefs like that. So what good does it do to allow that kind of testimony in?