Hacker News Reader

Comment by VWWHFSfQ | Hacker News Reader

you know the public defender legally has to do what you say right. you can insist on this psychological defense and they have no choice but to put it forward even if they think you're an idiot

View on HN

The amount of nonsense spewed about the legal system here on HN is sort of astonishing. A PD has absolutely no ethical or legal obligation to do anything of what a defendant says except in regards to the defendant testifying - you can advise your client not to testify, but they have a right to. Otherwise the PD, or any attorney for that matter, decides what evidence to use, what witnesses to call, and what the theory of the case is.

And yes, I am attorney. No, this is not legal advice.

Edit: apologies for the harsh intro tone. I had a long day of wrestling with disagreeable judges.

This is false. If the defendant feels they are being deprived of their right to adequate representation they can very easily file a grievance with the judge and get a new pd. In a case like this ignoring important evidence like psychological trauma would be grounds for the judge to replace the clients representation. So no, the public defender can't just ignore what their client wants with regard to how to defend their case.

Sure, but then we’re just talking in circles. The obligation to represent a client a certain way is dictated by the Rules of Professional Conduct (RPCs) promulgated by the state and federal bar associations. And what makes an attorney’s representation of a client adequate is additionally influenced by the area of law at issue and what makes a good or bad case theory/defense. Nowhere in any RPCs or in any case law is there a requirement that an attorney do what a client says, except in regards to letting a defendant testify if they want to.

Edit, to add: if it happens that what a defendant recommends comports with the RPCs and the best practices dictated by case law then an attorney would follow that recommendation... because it was required by an RPC or the best practice given the related case law, but definitely not because a defendant said it. If a defendant is giving an attorney pertinent legal advice then the attorney should probably look for a new job though.

>This is false.

No its not. You are moving the goalposts. Obviously people can hire whatever lawyer they can afford and potentially change lawyers if they have a valid grievance that a judge agrees is a reason to allow it. They can also opt to attempt to defend themselves. In either case, the judge would probably tell you that its an incredibly stupid decision that you should reconsider in a very kind attempt to prevent you from ruining your life.

There's a significant difference between "I can make my lawyer do whatever I want them to do because the law says they have to" and "I can get a new lawyer if my current lawyer doesn't agree with me."

If a public defender demonstrates a pattern of failing to provide adequate representation then they can be reprimanded by the court which carries both a legal and ethical consequence. So the point about the attorney not being legally or ethically required to represent the client as they wish is simply false.

>failing to provide adequate representation

This means they have to put an honest and significant effort into defending you to the best of their ability. They are responsible for the quality of their work, which is why they don't generally let the clients dictate the details of how they work or the overall strategy because the clients don't know what the fuck they are doing in virtually all cases where a lawyer isn't on trial.

You keep trying to change the situations you are talking about and then pretend that they are the same.

Isn’t this post popular because it’s not really seen here as a real defense? Or, if it’s real for her, it should be real for others. Meaning, it’s exceptional.. meaning, not likely to be a successful tactic by a PD.

It should be a real defense for mentally ill people that have conditions that make them somehow less culpable for their actions, regardless of wealth.

I wouldn't be surprised if Holmes is a sociopath, she perpetually has a classic crazy person bug-eyed look that you only get from being constantly on coke, being a fanatical religious nut, or from being severely mentally ill. Additionally, in public she purposefully talks 100% of the time in a laughably fake deep voice that she thinks makes her sound more masculine and powerful. There's a podcast where she accidentally broke character for a couple of seconds and sounded like a normal woman. The rest of the time she sounds like Kylo Ren. That's supposedly another thing that sociopaths do.

Its crazy that so many smart people fell for her con. She was obviously a creepy, random lunatic trying really hard to pull off a Steve Jobs act. As a layperson it seemed pretty obvious that the technology she claimed to have invented was probably impossible. Shame on anyone that's actually in the medical industry that bought into it.

And then there's her criminal actions, the lying, and the complete lack of remorse.

Unfortunately for her pretty much no civilized society thinks that sociopaths shouldn't be held responsible for their actions. So unless she convinces people she has an unrelated mental illness (which is what the article makes it sound like she's trying to do), its not going to be a good defense.

Generally I think the defendant wouldn't be aware of this, or even realize that they are being deprived of their right to adequate representation. Not to mention, how will they know the replacement will be better?

Of course. But how successful is that argument going to be when the public defender is juggling a dozen cases or more at once, meets with the defendant a handful of times before trial (if you’re lucky you can talk to a paralegal), and doesn’t have the resources of either time or money to dedicate to your case?

Putting forward the defense is one thing. Crafting a compelling argument, writing an amazing brief that cites past case law and/or is persuasive enough to argue how something fits the required statues, and obtaining the best expert witnesses to bolster the argument is something else entirely.

what do you do when your public defender doesn't do what you tell them to do and you have no money?

then you file a grievance with the court and you get a new trial

Reply on news.ycombinator.com