« True Believers and Bad Alibis | Main | Court Opinions April 15, 2005, Part I »

Comments

S.cotus

It is worth noting that Alaska has a rather high percentage of PD-turned judges.

txpublicdefender

I couldn't have said it better myself. Rarely have I seen a pro se defendant not completely screw himself and his case at trial.

Informed Citizens

And what about the Judge?

It appears Law Schools teach that a Judge is entitled to be ignorant of the Law.

The Judge has a duty to know the Rules of Court, Rules of Evidence & Procedure.

Even absent an objection, if the prosecutor gets out of line the Judge has a duty to stop it.

I defended myself, pro se. The Judge made sure I lost. The conviction was overturned on appeal.

I then brought suit against the Judge and against the State. I won, pro se, my case against the State for Wrongful Imprisonment.

Many of us have learned, through experience, that we cannot trust Attorneys. It may be different in Florida, but in Texas Defense Attorneys depend upon appointments from Criminal Judges. They choose to appoint those who are most effective in working AGAINST their clients interests, to coerce a plea bargain, or who will NOT provide adequate reprentation, as Judicial Elections are often determined by what Judge gets the most convictions. Thus, we choose to do without.

It's even more frustrating for a defendant to sit there, knowing your Attorney is blowing the case, and you cannot do anything. YOU, the defendant, are the one going to jail.

Frustrating it may be for an Attorney to be 'stand-by counsel'. Our Texas Constitution give us the right to an Attorney to act as 'co-counsel'. But I don't know of a case where a Judge has allowed it.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

Namagiqua

  • Naknek Trout
    Photos of various places throughout Alaska
Blog powered by Typepad