Mitigation: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

[sleutherontheside]

www.hg.org/article.asp?id=5873

Snip from the link
Another common example of ineffective assistance is when the criminal defense attorney fails to communicate a plea bargain offer made by the prosecutor. Had the plea offer been communicated to the client, they would have accepted it. Although this is not an "involuntary plea" situation, it is yet another way to reverse a bad result for the client based on ineffective assistance of counsel.[/I

Kind of makes me wonder if this has anything to do with why JB allowed KC to handwrite an addition to her conflict of interest and defense funding affidavit.

 

[cecybeans]

Snip from the link
Another common example of ineffective assistance is when the criminal defense attorney fails to communicate a plea bargain offer made by the prosecutor. Had the plea offer been communicated to the client, they would have accepted it. Although this is not an "involuntary plea" situation, it is yet another way to reverse a bad result for the client based on ineffective assistance of counsel.[/I

Kind of makes me wonder if this has anything to do with why JB allowed KC to handwrite an addition to her conflict of interest and defense funding affidavit.

Since his previous murder client also cried foul in terms of accusing the state of being harsh because he refused to cop a plea, it certainly could be interpreted as a CYA tactic by JB, to make it look as if they voluntarily turned down the offer without being strong-armed by him.

 

[cyberborg]

I get the impression that the defense is anticipating a likely conviction and preparring for the sentencing phase. Thats just a feeling though.

I agree. I think the ground is being prepared for that right now with AL's presentation of the Salem Witch trials, KC cannot get a fair trial, the demonization of KC, etc.

From what I see/read I sense the Defense is going to proceed to trial but recognizes that even with some small victories overall KC will be convicted and is looking to mitigate or reverse that after the fact.

They will still protest that KC did not do it but that the groundswell of public opinion and sentiment is fully against her.

 

[Spangle]

Red by me..
1. No.....I am not saying that JB is intentionally being incompetent. Many legal analysts have weighed in and pointed out his "errors" or blunders. But the fact that he has made them and that so many experts have weighed in COULD give AL her ammo. In filing an appeal based on JB's ineffective counsel.....his goofs would certainly help.

2. Sadly this is the case often. Now.....in AL's defense...she states that the cross examination IS her evidence. So that is where her attempt to discredit testimony and LKB's attempt to throw out forensics based upon procedural inconsistencies will become in essence...their evidence.

I am not an attorney, nor do I claim to be, but after listening to her lectures and reading her articles, I see where she is going with it. Hey listen....if I were on trial with the DP looming....I'd want her on my team too.

on the #1, glad you cleared that up. I was under the impression that the theory was that he was doing it on purpose, from the get go. The trial down in Polk county shows that he is following his MO.. of being Ineffective.

On the #2, it's pretty much expected that anything and everything will be used during appeals. It's nice to know her strategy, but it doesn't mean it will work.

It's one thing if she didn't know he was screwing up. But if she KNOWS, can she still claim it? Oh, I know she can file it. I'm just wondering how it would be considered by the appeals court.

Alot of noise is being made over the DP. But Florida rarely uses the DP on women. It has happened, but it is rare. We have a thread discussing this, I believe. All of which makes AL statements of "Florida wants to kill my client" such a joke. SHE is putting the idea in the heads of the jury by such statements. Reminding folks that for her clients crime, it should be DEATH if found guilty.

Sorry, my point is.. alot of work to prevent the DP, when most likely her client would have gotten LWOP in the first place. Making this an easy "win" for AL. OR should have.

 

[cloud]

That thought has occurred for me so many times that it's just routine now... and I don't think I'm alone.

I don't think for a moment that he expects to win the case, so the next best thing is the "ineffective counsel" appeal - anything to get her off.

My question is WHY? Does he really believe so strongly in her innocence that he would throw a case and part of his reputation/career with it, or...?

JMHO

 

[cecybeans]

That thought has occurred for me so many times that it's just routine now... and I don't think I'm alone.

I don't think for a moment that he expects to win the case, so the next best thing is the "ineffective counsel" appeal - anything to get her off.

My question is WHY? Does he really believe so strongly in her innocence that he would throw a case and part of his reputation/career with it, or...?

JMHO

Was having this discussion with a dear friend tonight. We both considered how KC might be the recalcitrant one, not going along with the idea a petitioning for a plea deal now (or throwing a hissy because she was led to believe earlier it wouldn't get this far).

While I'm sure it's true that JB exploited the situation earlier to catapult himself into the limelight and use the notoriety to further his career, after Caylee's remains were found nothing has exactly gone as planned. The little fit she threw that day in the jail may be her true colors coming out - she may have been promised things that could not be delivered, but it is equally possible she may have shared her mother's stubborn insistence that the world would bend to her own wishes in regards to reality and that she refused to budge from her initial story.

JB looked very uncomfortable reading that sniffy little missive KC had him read to the public about her wishes for Caylee not being honored, and the fact that she fully expected to visit her grave. She wrote that ridiculous addendum to the motion accusing the state of harboring a grudge, perhaps over his objections. It's obvious it took AL to get her serious enough about the possibilities of a DP to get her to stop acting silly and self-absorbed in court (to little avail, now she simply appears to get angry or cry self-pitying tears). KC may simply be imitating her mom - who is completely uncooperative with and hostile toward anyone who disagrees with her own version of the world. Perhaps she's been the one all along that refused to take a plea and insisted she'd be found not guilty, we really have no way of knowing, but that would certainly fit with the behavior we've seen her exhibit since her arrest.

If JB is not a total idiot, he might be waiting until either before the check fraud trial or right before the murder trial to go before the judge and recuse himself by saying he cannot represent her because she refuses to listen to his counsel. Let's face it, he's had the most useful 15 minutes of his fame, and any further association with her, particularly the keen probability of losing a high-profile case in a spectacular way, is likely to diminish whatever cachet this case has given him. If judging by the lack of exculpatory evidence and the lack of activity so far of defense experts we can surmise the defense is between a rock and a hard place, which they likely are, he would be smart to cut his losses and run. I think he can lose everything he may think he's gained by associating himself with this case past a certain point.

So he may go for a pre-emptive strike and save himself in the eleventh hour.

 

[cloud]

Was having this discussion with a dear friend tonight. We both considered how KC might be the recalcitrant one, not going along with the idea a petitioning for a plea deal now (or throwing a hissy because she was led to believe earlier it wouldn't get this far).

While I'm sure it's true that JB exploited the situation earlier to catapult himself into the limelight and use the notoriety to further his career, after Caylee's remains were found nothing has exactly gone as planned. The little fit she threw that day in the jail may be her true colors coming out - she may have been promised things that could not be delivered, but it is equally possible she may have shared her mother's stubborn insistence that the world would bend to her own wishes in regards to reality and that she refused to budge from her initial story.

JB looked very uncomfortable reading that sniffy little missive KC had him read to the public about her wishes for Caylee not being honored, and the fact that she fully expected to visit her grave. She wrote that ridiculous addendum to the motion accusing the state of harboring a grudge, perhaps over his objections. It's obvious it took AL to get her serious enough about the possibilities of a DP to get her to stop acting silly and self-absorbed in court (to little avail, now she simply appears to get angry or cry self-pitying tears). KC may simply be imitating her mom - who is completely uncooperative with and hostile toward anyone who disagrees with her own version of the world. Perhaps she's been the one all along that refused to take a plea and insisted she'd be found not guilty, we really have no way of knowing, but that would certainly fit with the behavior we've seen her exhibit since her arrest.

If JB is not a total idiot, he might be waiting until either before the check fraud trial or right before the murder trial to go before the judge and recuse himself by saying he cannot represent her because she refuses to listen to his counsel. Let's face it, he's had the most useful 15 minutes of his fame, and any further association with her, particularly the keen probability of losing a high-profile case in a spectacular way, is likely to diminish whatever cachet this case has given him. If judging by the lack of exculpatory evidence and the lack of activity so far of defense experts we can surmise the defense is between a rock and a hard place, which they likely are, he would be smart to cut his losses and run. I think he can lose everything he may think he's gained by associating himself with this case past a certain point.

So he may go for a pre-emptive strike and save himself in the eleventh hour.

Masterfully stated. I wish you would do the summation in the actual trial.

Thank you.

JMHO

 

[cloud]

Was having this discussion with a dear friend tonight. We both considered how KC might be the recalcitrant one, not going along with the idea a petitioning for a plea deal now (or throwing a hissy because she was led to believe earlier it wouldn't get this far).

While I'm sure it's true that JB exploited the situation earlier to catapult himself into the limelight and use the notoriety to further his career, after Caylee's remains were found nothing has exactly gone as planned. The little fit she threw that day in the jail may be her true colors coming out - she may have been promised things that could not be delivered, but it is equally possible she may have shared her mother's stubborn insistence that the world would bend to her own wishes in regards to reality and that she refused to budge from her initial story.

JB looked very uncomfortable reading that sniffy little missive KC had him read to the public about her wishes for Caylee not being honored, and the fact that she fully expected to visit her grave. She wrote that ridiculous addendum to the motion accusing the state of harboring a grudge, perhaps over his objections. It's obvious it took AL to get her serious enough about the possibilities of a DP to get her to stop acting silly and self-absorbed in court (to little avail, now she simply appears to get angry or cry self-pitying tears). KC may simply be imitating her mom - who is completely uncooperative with and hostile toward anyone who disagrees with her own version of the world. Perhaps she's been the one all along that refused to take a plea and insisted she'd be found not guilty, we really have no way of knowing, but that would certainly fit with the behavior we've seen her exhibit since her arrest.

If JB is not a total idiot, he might be waiting until either before the check fraud trial or right before the murder trial to go before the judge and recuse himself by saying he cannot represent her because she refuses to listen to his counsel. Let's face it, he's had the most useful 15 minutes of his fame, and any further association with her, particularly the keen probability of losing a high-profile case in a spectacular way, is likely to diminish whatever cachet this case has given him. If judging by the lack of exculpatory evidence and the lack of activity so far of defense experts we can surmise the defense is between a rock and a hard place, which they likely are, he would be smart to cut his losses and run. I think he can lose everything he may think he's gained by associating himself with this case past a certain point.

So he may go for a pre-emptive strike and save himself in the eleventh hour.

Was having this discussion with a dear friend tonight. We both considered how KC might be the recalcitrant one, not going along with the idea a petitioning for a plea deal now (or throwing a hissy because she was led to believe earlier it wouldn't get this far).

While I'm sure it's true that JB exploited the situation earlier to catapult himself into the limelight and use the notoriety to further his career, after Caylee's remains were found nothing has exactly gone as planned. The little fit she threw that day in the jail may be her true colors coming out - she may have been promised things that could not be delivered, but it is equally possible she may have shared her mother's stubborn insistence that the world would bend to her own wishes in regards to reality and that she refused to budge from her initial story.

JB looked very uncomfortable reading that sniffy little missive KC had him read to the public about her wishes for Caylee not being honored, and the fact that she fully expected to visit her grave. She wrote that ridiculous addendum to the motion accusing the state of harboring a grudge, perhaps over his objections. It's obvious it took AL to get her serious enough about the possibilities of a DP to get her to stop acting silly and self-absorbed in court (to little avail, now she simply appears to get angry or cry self-pitying tears). KC may simply be imitating her mom - who is completely uncooperative with and hostile toward anyone who disagrees with her own version of the world. Perhaps she's been the one all along that refused to take a plea and insisted she'd be found not guilty, we really have no way of knowing, but that would certainly fit with the behavior we've seen her exhibit since her arrest.

If JB is not a total idiot, he might be waiting until either before the check fraud trial or right before the murder trial to go before the judge and recuse himself by saying he cannot represent her because she refuses to listen to his counsel. Let's face it, he's had the most useful 15 minutes of his fame, and any further association with her, particularly the keen probability of losing a high-profile case in a spectacular way, is likely to diminish whatever cachet this case has given him. If judging by the lack of exculpatory evidence and the lack of activity so far of defense experts we can surmise the defense is between a rock and a hard place, which they likely are, he would be smart to cut his losses and run. I think he can lose everything he may think he's gained by associating himself with this case past a certain point.

So he may go for a pre-emptive strike and save himself in the eleventh hour.

Masterfully stated. I wish you would do the summation in the actual trial.

Thank you.

JMHO

 

[cloud]

OK - something really weird is going on here. I only quoted that post to which I replied, once. It didn't work. Now it's worked twice. Actually - three times. Tricia please help. I am not doing this. I wish I knew who was and why.

Thanks,
Cloud

 

[Jomo]

With all due respect, I'm not sure that I totally agree with Mr. Hornsby about ineffective assistance of counsel. (I would ask him but his blog site has seemed to have disappeared?!?!) I think that any damage to KC's defense has been done by her and her alone. I agree with Cecybeans that KC probably tried to run the show and ignored JB's advice. I have always thought that Terrance Lenamon left the case because of KC.

At the beginning, I also think that KC was still try to convince CA & GA that she did not do it, hence the wearing the t-shirts and making appeals to bring Caylee home.

One cannot ignore the fact that KC did a terrible thing and she is most likely mental messed up. Anyone who is able to kill a child and believe that the best days have finally arrived might just be a bit difficult to work on a plan cooperatively. I'm not sure anyone can help her.

Can the mitigation expert put a stop to the whole trial with evidence that KC is mentally ill and not able to assist in her own defense? Judge Strickland was immediately onto how pathelogical KC is and I know that she has had a psych evaluation. Would the trial go on even if the psych evaluation suggested she was mentally ill? Or is this totally up to KC to decide? (hope I'm not OT)

 

[21merc7]

With all due respect, I'm not sure that I totally agree with Mr. Hornsby about ineffective assistance of counsel. (I would ask him but his blog site has seemed to have disappeared?!?!) I think that any damage to KC's defense has been done by her and her alone. I agree with Cecybeans that KC probably tried to run the show and ignored JB's advice. I have always thought that Terrance Lenamon left the case because of KC.

At the beginning, I also think that KC was still try to convince CA & GA that she did not do it, hence the wearing the t-shirts and making appeals to bring Caylee home.

One cannot ignore the fact that KC did a terrible thing and she is most likely mental messed up. Anyone who is able to kill a child and believe that the best days have finally arrived might just be a bit difficult to work on a plan cooperatively. I'm not sure anyone can help her.

Can the mitigation expert put a stop to the whole trial with evidence that KC is mentally ill and not able to assist in her own defense? Judge Strickland was immediately onto how pathelogical KC is and I know that she has had a psych evaluation. Would the trial go on even if the psych evaluation suggested she was mentally ill? Or is this totally up to KC to decide? (hope I'm not OT)

Casey may have psych problems, but she is not mentally ill enough to not be able to assist in her own defense. She can think clearly, understand what is being said, what is going on. (To be mentally ill enough not to be able to understand the charges you are in jail on is something more like someone who just cannot comprehend anything, not words, not thoughts, you get the idea. Completely out of this world crazy.)

Ineffective assistance of counsel comes later down the line, I don't see it happening here. Too many highly qualified attorneys on the case. Of course after KC's guaranteed "regular" appellate rights are exhausted, she may try to file of ineffective assistance of counsel. Most inmates do. With all of the attorneys here, and being so highly scrutinized, JB's tiny role will not grant her that relief. (Unless of course, whomever ends up being the DP attorney at trial makes a huge blunder. If relief is granted for any reason, KC would just have to endure another trial.) JMO.

 

[DogMom2JoeAndWillie]

Red by me..
1. No.....I am not saying that JB is intentionally being incompetent. Many legal analysts have weighed in and pointed out his "errors" or blunders. But the fact that he has made them and that so many experts have weighed in COULD give AL her ammo. In filing an appeal based on JB's ineffective counsel.....his goofs would certainly help.

2. Sadly this is the case often. Now.....in AL's defense...she states that the cross examination IS her evidence. So that is where her attempt to discredit testimony and LKB's attempt to throw out forensics based upon procedural inconsistencies will become in essence...their evidence.

I am not an attorney, nor do I claim to be, but after listening to her lectures and reading her articles, I see where she is going with it. Hey listen....if I were on trial with the DP looming....I'd want her on my team too.

Thanks for explaining to me. I think I get it now. I thought you'd be the best person to ask these questions to since I know how much time and effort you've been putting into listening to her lectures lately. :blowkiss:
Hope I didn't misunderstand and/or make you angry with what I had wrong.

 

[JBean]

OK - something really weird is going on here. I only quoted that post to which I replied, once. It didn't work. Now it's worked twice. Actually - three times. Tricia please help. I am not doing this. I wish I knew who was and why.

Thanks,
Cloud

It's just a glitch that happens from time to time. for the future, if your post does not post, just wait for a few. Your original post is being held in a queue until the interruption is over and then will display it. If you repost or hit "reply" again a duplicate post will get in the queue with the original post and then they will all display.
So, just don't try and repost or hit the reply button again, wait a few and then it will come up. If there are no new posts around, other people are having the same problem.

 

[sleutherontheside]

Thanks for explaining to me. I think I get it now. I thought you'd be the best person to ask these questions to since I know how much time and effort you've been putting into listening to her lectures lately. :blowkiss:
Hope I didn't misunderstand and/or make you angry with what I had wrong.

Don't be silly :crazy:.....why would I be angry? I just wanted to be clear what I meant so that others would not think that I was implying that the defense was intentionally "throwing it". Don't need any lawyers after me for libel. KWIM??

 

[cloud]

It's just a glitch that happens from time to time. for the future, if your post does not post, just wait for a few. Your original post is being held in a queue until the interruption is over and then will display it. If you repost or hit "reply" again a duplicate post will get in the queue with the original post and then they will all display.
So, just don't try and repost or hit the reply button again, wait a few and then it will come up. If there are no new posts around, other people are having the same problem.

Thank you JBean Will do.

 

[LambChop]

OK - something really weird is going on here. I only quoted that post to which I replied, once. It didn't work. Now it's worked twice. Actually - three times. Tricia please help. I am not doing this. I wish I knew who was and why.

Thanks,
Cloud

Two words. Solar Eclipse. Nature's way of saying don't take anything for granted.

 

[The World According]

bumping

 

[autumnlover]

IMO, JB is not smart enough to have planned this from the beginning. I think he opposed the gag order because he saw the media as a vehicle for spinning the defense's story as he realized that his client is "Public Enemy No. 1." as he puts it. However, I do think it's entirely possible that JB keeps filing motions and doesn't depose witnesses so he can keep delaying the inevitable.

 

[Reagan]

Hi autumnlover!

I don't think JB planned on being incompetent and ineffective from the beginning (and to this day) either. But he is, so AL is going to attempt to use it to their clients advantage.

Thankfully Judge S is doing his damnedest to prevent any appellate issues ... and has ordered her out of her "room" to attend each hearing so she can see her so-called dream team in action and what decisions they make on her behalf.

Say... where has Todd M and LKB been lately?

 

[Kentjbkent]

Finally found the link I had posted months ago in regards to a murder case that is being appealed based on ineffective counsel. RH had originally posted this link on his blog with a "tease" that his next blog would discuss this case and its similarities to KC case, but then he took a "leave of absense".

I think it is a fascinating read and gives insight into how the appeal court views ineffective counsel...

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9234765067865176425

This is a case that was taken under appeal for a defendant convicted of first degree murder in Florida. The appeal is based on alleged multiple claims of ineffective assistance of counsel during the criminal proceeding resulting in his conviction. Where I think it may be worthy of comparison is that the claims include the defense attorney's lack of hiring experts, lack of depositions, financial arrangements, as well as conflict in interest whereas the defense attorney's involvement potentially put him in the position of becoming a witness in the case.

1. Delayed Disclosure Of The Murder Weapon.

Shortly after the shootings, Mr. Alessi's family hired attorney Huntley Johnson to represent Mr. Alessi at trial. In an early telephone conversation between Mr. Johnson and Mr. Alessi, Alessi informed Johnson that he was contemplating suicide. In response, Mr. Johnson told Mr. Alessi to "get rid of the gun" — the weapon Mr. Alessi had used in the shooting — which was obviously evidence in the murder case. Mr. Alessi followed his lawyer's advice and tossed or hid the gun in a storm drain. A week later, the two discussed the fact that Mr. Johnson would need to turn the gun over to the State. Mr. Alessi immediately agreed, and told Mr. Johnson where the gun was hidden. However, Johnson delayed his disclosure to the State for approximately four months.

At trial, the State argued that hiding the gun and delaying the disclosure of its location evidenced Mr. Alessi's consciousness of guilt. In response to the State's questions, Mr. Alessi attempted to explain that he was acting on the advice of counsel, but Mr. Johnson objected to the line of inquiry. At a bench conference, Mr. Johnson expressed his outrage that the State was pursuing this line of questioning, and the associated argument, when the prosecutor knew that Mr. Alessi had been acting on his advice and that he — not Mr. Alessi — was responsible for the long delay.

Then, in its closing argument, the State argued, without objection, that Mr. Alessi's decision to hide the gun, and his delay in disclosing its location, further evidenced his consciousness of guilt.

I speculate if this is where the ongoing saga with Dominic Casey is playing out. It was stated by Hoover (I believe) that Baez supposively told DC NOT to contact LE if they were to discover the remains while looking at the wooded area off Surburban Dr in November. What was DC told? By whom? What role did JB play in this? Could this pave the way for appeal if convicted by KC?

2. Fee Arrangement And Decision To Forego Expert Witnesses.

The retainer agreement between the Alessi family and Mr. Johnson established a fee of $135,000, which included "any services of investigators, or experts employed by undersigned attorney." Mr. Alessi's family testified at the evidentiary hearing that Mr. Johnson told them that he would seek "police experts" to go through the case and offer re-enactments and testimony regarding bullet projectories [sic], and that he would "have all kinds of experts on this case."

I am curious as to whether KC entered into a similar retainer agreement with Baez, and that the initial amount was funded from the sale of pictures, videos shortly after she was bonded out by LP (remember all the visits to Baez office with loaded arms). Could this be why the "big guns" were initially brought on board (paid out of retainer fee) but all parties assumed that future licensing fees would continue to financially pay for the defense, but then the State shut that plan down by filing the motion? No more money, no more defense expert!

Additionally, Mr. Johnson's own investigator, Kirby Jordan, testified that early on in his involvement in the case, he recommended to Mr. Johnson that they secure expert testimony to support the defense theory that it was a reactionary shooting upon seeing Mr. Herron's gun. Mr. Jordan offered to locate an expert but Mr. Johnson said he would take care of it. About a month before trial, Mr. Jordan again asked about expert testimony. Mr. Johnson told Mr. Jordan that he would not be hiring experts because the Alessi family could not afford them. Mr. Jordan assumed that Johnson would ask the family for more money because "we all agreed that it was going to be a critical part of the case." Later, Mr. Johnson's explanation for not using experts shifted from lack of money to the fact that Mr. Johnson felt he had prepared the case without them, and did not think he needed one.In his testimony at the evidentiary hearing, Mr. Johnson acknowledged the retainer agreement and that any money he would have spent on experts would have come from his fee. Mr. Johnson testified that he considered using experts, but explained that his decision not to hire an expert was strictly strategic, and had nothing to do with the fee arrangement. According to Mr. Johnson, his primary concern was that the State would hire an expert in response. Mr. Johnson testified that:
ased on the reports that we had and the fact that the State did not have [an expert], we felt like we could make the argument sufficiently with the photographs and with the reports [and] that [our defense] could not be contradicted unless they had an expert. And we didn't want to get into doing experts when we thought we could make the argument . . . without an expert.
Mr. Johnson testified that he explained his reasoning to Mr. Alessi, who agreed with the decision. Testimony from Mr. Johnson's law partner also supported Mr. Johnson's position that Mr. Johnson did not pursue an expert witness for reasons unrelated to the cost.

On various defense threads, we have discussed the lack of experts in this case, with the exception of one examination by Dr. Henry Lee. Does Mr. Baez have the same defense theory...that he doesn't need experts to counter the prosecution experts, but instead feels confident that he can debunk the state experts himself? Or do you think lack of funds do play into this? (BTW...appeal court sided with defense atty in this incident, citing it did not find experts were not hired due to conflict of interest (personal financial).

2. The Burnside and Cole Tests For Applying Sullivan.

The attorney in Cole had entered a retainer agreement providing that all deposition costs would come from his fee, and then deposed no witnesses. Based upon the trial court's finding that the attorneys' decision to forego depositions was unaffected by the fee arrangement, our court affirmed the denial order. Of course, in that case, the defendant had established a viable alternative defense strategy (deposing witnesses in preparation for trial), that was inherently in conflict with counsel's financial self-interest. Therefore, if this court had applied the two-part viable alternative test recited in Burnside, ad litteram (i.e., to the letter, or precisely), it would have reversed the denial order, and required a new trial in Cole.

It is my understanding that to date, Baez has conducted few depositions, apart from Kronk and the OCSD investigators. Do we know if Baez has more depositions scheduled, or is it a matter of finances? If Baez chooses to forego any additional depositions prior to trial, could this be a factor for KC in filing an appeal based on ineffective counsel?

The types of fee arrangements employed in this case, and in Cole, are so susceptible to claims of conflict and questions regarding the ethics of the attorney's strategic decisions at odds with his or her own financial interests that an attorney should probably expect an ethics inquiry by the Florida Bar with respect to any case for which this type of fee arrangement is used. In fact, this type of fee arrangement is so obviously prone to allegations of ethical lapse that the supreme court may want to consider barring it altogether in criminal cases.