That was a question brought up by a Supreme and yeah it sounded like the defense lawyer said the client (RA) would be signing something saying he couldn't appeal on the grounds if ineffective council...if he gets his old lawyers back, goes to trial with them and loses.
That was an interesting question actually because the state could be seen as liable for his poor defense if they fund it. What a condundrum!
Is that even legal? I thought setting a condition of waiver of a defendant’s future right to appeal was an unacceptable legal condition.
I'd actually be alright with that idea!!
I think the if the old D gets reinstated there has to be a hearing on if they're gross negligence stands/stays on record right? So whole another circus with attorneys?
Good point on that but like that one justice said, you can't have it both ways...what to do?
I liked his assertiveness in this section of his arguments! He was very firm that RA couldn't have been more clear on his wishes and cited each date when RA was clear. I hope RA DOES get his original counsel back! And... I hope that forces the matter to trial sooner than next October. JG in my view should NOT have fired the counsel without a hearing.
He will have other appeals available, just not one that includes ineffective counsel.
But it's still on record that the old defense was grossly negligent. Does reinstatement by the Supremes wipe that off the record...and they start back as if nothing happened OR does the trial court have a hearing on the old D's negligence?
I'm just guessing...yes?
In my listening, even one of the SCOIN judges said after reading the transcripts of the in-chambers hearing, that it didn't seem like the attorneys had much choice in withdrawing that day. JMO.
Can a person who is presumed to be innocent waive a right to appeal a conviction prior to going to trial? It appears his right to appeal cannot be waived as a condition of a conviction or plea bargain.
