Update 2: For those who don’t want to read the comments (shame on you!), here’s my follow up post.
Is the only thing that can explain the following comment to the press by a lawyer about his client:
Reyes’ attorney, William Gerace, said that the private company’s results were also a match. Gerace said that Reyes’ decision to not accept a plea deal of 15 years is a bad one.
“He’s being very foolish in my view. He was given a plea bargain that’s not a lenient plea bargain, but under the circumstance, if he goes to trial, he will get a lot more,” Gerace said.
Gerace said the evidence against his client is too strong and that if there is a trial, Reyes could go to prison for more than 20 years.
Update: The news story linked to above leads one to believe that these statements were said to the press, but it is not explicit in that regard. However, the video that accompanies the story has a clip of Attorney Gerace speaking to the media and this Courant story also clarifies that these comments were indeed to the press.
Miranda, in the comments below, raises an interesting question: Is it useful, or shall we say not despicable, for an attorney to make a limited statement on the record reflecting that after being advised by counsel, the client has decided to reject the offer?
Looking at this from a future habeas perspective, Attorney Gerace will certainly be safe from claims that he did not adequately convey the state’s offer to him, but what of a general ineffectiveness claim? Do these comments hurt his client? Would they not support a claim that he was pressured into taking a plea agreement or that his attorney failed to adequately represent him and conduct an investigation into his defense, supported by his comments to the press acknowledging his client’s guilt and his desire to have him plead guilty?
Scott weighs in on this topic as well