Comments on: Careful what you wish for

By: Gideon

Gideon — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 04:32:39 +0000

I saw that. Obviously, I’m sure that they put a lot of hard work into preparing for the argument and anyone who can get up there and argue before the Supreme Court has done a good job.

However, the argument seemed like it was rather painful. It’s happened to me too. I feel like I did the best I could.

By: SPO

SPO — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 21:52:34 +0000

Whaddya think of van de Kamp v. Goldstein?

By: Skelly

Skelly — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 06:28:55 +0000

Well, somebody felt that they did a heckuva job…

By: SPO

SPO — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 18:10:33 +0000

Actually, you mentioned that you would be able to rebut the problem that Cronic presents. It never happened. I think you realize that while a few liberal judges more interested in helping criminals than the law will swallow the argument, logic dictates that it’s a dead dog loser.

In any event, did you see Stevens whining about the government picking a choosing its cases? Waaaaaaaaah.

By: Gideon

Gideon — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 17:47:38 +0000

“ducked”? I don’t think so. We discussed this a while back and ever since then I’ve just ignored your repeated attempts to revisit the issue.

By: SPO

SPO — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 17:44:36 +0000

That was a lame oral argument, but how much better could the guy have done?

I don’t understand your question about why this case made it to SCOTUS. Defense attorneys don’t represent defendants as a whole, they represent individuals. This guy Puckett has some skin in the game here.

Speaking of plea bargains, Gid, care to go toe to toe on the “I would have accepted the plea but my attorney was incompetent so therefore I should get the benefit of the plea deal even though I went to trial”? You’ve ducked that one.