Cyber sleuth
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2015
- Messages
- 1,115
- Reaction score
- 9,369
I bet it’s in one of those hard drives or phones retrieved during the search warrant.We need a side by side from him about circa 2017, correct?
I bet it’s in one of those hard drives or phones retrieved during the search warrant.We need a side by side from him about circa 2017, correct?
It is not going to shock me if B&R opt to file. I would. I would want the entire world looking at this Judge and how she runs her courtroom. I would absolutely file even if just to ensure that RA has the best chance at appeal or acquittal down the road! JG needs to be off this case. TODAY.This keeps getting repeated but they are not being asked to rule on this - at least not yet. We'll see if B&R file.
See the brief dated 10/30
I don't understand that post.
jmo
Bingo! Great post!I see this differently. She's been teetering on handing him an appeal if he's convicted. Now, after this gets out and the American people see what's being done in our justice system in contravention of basic constitutional rights, she may be handing him an acquittal for which jeopardy will attach. I really do believe that the majority of people who are following this case will be disturbed by these latest events.
jmo
Old D has not directly asked for a review/decision of their disqualification by the Court ... yet.I think they aleady did that, no? That's what the heavy hitters are in it for, one being on the code review board for the State Supreme Court.
Thanks for doing this.
Agree.Bingo! Great post!
Automatic reversal is the remedy for breach of the assistance of counsel clause.
What conflict of interest?
IMO, If either of the Old D is under investigation, Gull would immediately OUT that info. Checkmate. Game over.
Something folks might not realize is that ... with Baldwin at least ... he believes that flexibility, thinking outside the box, pursuing other investigative trails, poking holes and discrediting a criminal investigation is a major part of his process ... a benefit, not a handicap.
I found his ethos, right there on the front page of his firm's website bio, to be frank as to his approach and style. If Judge Gull doesn't care for this ethos, this defense style, why did she hire it?
Here's Baldwin's website bio page:
Andrew J. Baldwin | The Criminal Defense Team
Criminal defendants are owed rights conferred by the sixth and fourteenth amendments:Sorry, either brain and fingers aren’t cooperating this am. I’ll try again.
A Constitutional Right of indigents is a fair trial. That right should take precedence over his choice of counsel IMO.
They've asked that she be disqualified. Wasn't that one of the filings? To look into that the SC will have look into it all...all the "gross negligence" that led to the judge's decisions. Is that not how it works?
The Sixth Amendment gives the accused in criminal cases the right to hire attorneys of their choice. Turner, 594 F.3d at 948, citing Wheat, 486 U.S. at 159, 108 S.Ct. 1692. The right has been regarded as “the root meaning of the constitutional guarantee” in the Sixth Amendment. Gonzalez–Lopez, 548 U.S. at 147–48, 126 S.Ct. 2557, citing *749 Wheat, 486 U.S. at 159, 108 S.Ct. 1692. Even so, a defendant's choice of counsel may be overridden and counsel may be disqualified where an actual conflict of interest or a serious potential for conflict exists. Wheat, 486 U.S. at 163–64, 108 S.Ct. 1692 (affirming refusal to accept defendant's waiver of attorney's “serious potential” for conflict of interest); accord, Turner, 594 F.3d at 952. A conflict that amounts to a breach of the code of professional ethics “obviously qualifies” as an actual conflict of interest of the sort that allows the trial court to disqualify counsel regardless of a defendant's offer to waive. Turner, 594 F.3d at 952.This is not correct.
Moo
IMO, the Court's decisions and the facts she's basing those decisions on must be transparent.I agree, I think the Judge is trying to stop things going completely off the rails. She knows things about the alleged misconduct that we don't, and what we know already is pretty bad. I think the former team are going to be lucky if they walk away from this with careers, and trying to represent pro bono is nothing to do with RA at all, it's a Hail Mary.
MOO
Where in the record has Judge Gull made a finding of "conflict of interest?'The Sixth Amendment gives the accused in criminal cases the right to hire attorneys of their choice. Turner, 594 F.3d at 948, citing Wheat, 486 U.S. at 159, 108 S.Ct. 1692. The right has been regarded as “the root meaning of the constitutional guarantee” in the Sixth Amendment. Gonzalez–Lopez, 548 U.S. at 147–48, 126 S.Ct. 2557, citing *749 Wheat, 486 U.S. at 159, 108 S.Ct. 1692. Even so, a defendant's choice of counsel may be overridden and counsel may be disqualified where an actual conflict of interest or a serious potential for conflict exists. Wheat, 486 U.S. at 163–64, 108 S.Ct. 1692 (affirming refusal to accept defendant's waiver of attorney's “serious potential” for conflict of interest); accord, Turner, 594 F.3d at 952. A conflict that amounts to a breach of the code of professional ethics “obviously qualifies” as an actual conflict of interest of the sort that allows the trial court to disqualify counsel regardless of a defendant's offer to waive. Turner, 594 F.3d at 952.
United States v. Turner, 651 F.3d 743, 748–49 (7th Cir. 2011)
JMO
Very RSBMI feel badly for the family of the victims, I do - but I also feel terribly for RA who will now waste away in jail for another full YEAR of his life when in fact, he MAY be completely innocent of all charges!!
It is not going to shock me if B&R opt to file. I would. I would want the entire world looking at this Judge and how she runs her courtroom. I would absolutely file even if just to ensure that RA has the best chance at appeal or acquittal down the road! JG needs to be off this case. TODAY.
You're correct that the Old D's motion to have Gull DQ herself made it in papers to the Supreme Court filing yesterday. (Provided as background.)They've asked that she be disqualified. Wasn't that one of the filings? To look into that the SC will have look into it all...all the "gross negligence" that led to the judge's decisions. Is that not how it works?
A fair trial is a Constitutional Right of indigents, is it not? That right takes precedence over his choice of counsel IMO.
The Sixth Amendment guarantees that "n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall ... have the assistance of counsel for his defense." U.S. Const., Amendment VI. The right to counsel of choice has been described as an "essential component" of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, U.S. v. Nichols (1988), 10th Cir., 841 F.2d 1485, 1501, and "a defendant should be afforded a fair opportunity to secure counsel of his own choice." Powell v. Alabama (1932), 287 U.S. 45, 53, 53 S. Ct. 55, 58, 77 L. Ed. 158. The right privately to retain counsel of choice derives from a defendant's right to determine the type of defense he wishes to present. U.S. v. Mendoza-Salgado (1992), 10th Cir., 964 F.2d 993, 1014; U.S. v. Collins (1990), 10th Cir., 920 F.2d 619, 625, cert. denied, (1991), 500 U.S. 920, 111 S. Ct. 2022, 114 L. Ed. 2d 108. Lawyers are not fungible, and often the most important decision a defendant makes in shaping his defense is the selection of an attorney. Nichols, at 1502. In situations where a defendant is able to retain counsel privately "the choice of counsel rests in his hands, not in the hands of the state." Collins, at 625. In criminal cases, the right to retain counsel of choice becomes a question of fundamental fairness, the denial of which may rise to a level of constitutional violation. Id.
Where in the record has Judge Gull made a finding of "conflict of interest?'
What's the alleged conflict of interest here? Not even Judge Gull has said anything about a conflict of interest.The Sixth Amendment gives the accused in criminal cases the right to hire attorneys of their choice. Turner, 594 F.3d at 948, citing Wheat, 486 U.S. at 159, 108 S.Ct. 1692. The right has been regarded as “the root meaning of the constitutional guarantee” in the Sixth Amendment. Gonzalez–Lopez, 548 U.S. at 147–48, 126 S.Ct. 2557, citing *749 Wheat, 486 U.S. at 159, 108 S.Ct. 1692. Even so, a defendant's choice of counsel may be overridden and counsel may be disqualified where an actual conflict of interest or a serious potential for conflict exists. Wheat, 486 U.S. at 163–64, 108 S.Ct. 1692 (affirming refusal to accept defendant's waiver of attorney's “serious potential” for conflict of interest); accord, Turner, 594 F.3d at 952. A conflict that amounts to a breach of the code of professional ethics “obviously qualifies” as an actual conflict of interest of the sort that allows the trial court to disqualify counsel regardless of a defendant's offer to waive. Turner, 594 F.3d at 952.
United States v. Turner, 651 F.3d 743, 748–49 (7th Cir. 2011)
JMO