Comments on: Preempting Strickland http://apublicdefender.com/2010/05/09/preempting-strickland/ Tue, 24 Jan 2012 02:29:56 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Indigent defense on trial http://apublicdefender.com/2010/05/09/preempting-strickland/comment-page-1/#comment-64468 Indigent defense on trial Tue, 13 Jul 2010 00:07:23 +0000 http://apublicdefender.com/?p=3051#comment-64468 [...] arguments such as these is the fact of conviction, it is a duplicitous and misleading argument, as I’ve argued before. From the appeals court’s perspective, there is nothing constitutionally deficient or [...] [...] arguments such as these is the fact of conviction, it is a duplicitous and misleading argument, as I’ve argued before. From the appeals court’s perspective, there is nothing constitutionally deficient or [...]

]]> By: IleanaDU http://apublicdefender.com/2010/05/09/preempting-strickland/comment-page-1/#comment-60881 IleanaDU Sun, 16 May 2010 04:01:59 +0000 http://apublicdefender.com/?p=3051#comment-60881 Hi, just came across some of your posts re ISVD, but I can't find a definition or explanation anywhere as to what ISVD is. I know it has to do with "Voir Dire" and the I probably stands for "Individual," but what does the S stand for? - Ileana A curious non-litigator P.S. Also couldn't figure out how to contact you directly; that's why I'm posting here, even though it's OT. Hi, just came across some of your posts re ISVD, but I can’t find a definition or explanation anywhere as to what ISVD is. I know it has to do with “Voir Dire” and the I probably stands for “Individual,” but what does the S stand for?

- Ileana
A curious non-litigator

P.S. Also couldn’t figure out how to contact you directly; that’s why I’m posting here, even though it’s OT.

]]> By: Gideon http://apublicdefender.com/2010/05/09/preempting-strickland/comment-page-1/#comment-60583 Gideon Wed, 12 May 2010 02:44:58 +0000 http://apublicdefender.com/?p=3051#comment-60583 It definitely is a vague term with no real meaning. More like a veil that courts can hide lawyers behind. It's really silly. But I think we have some sort of obligation - moral, ethical, whatever - to jump in and at least help someone who is floundering. It definitely is a vague term with no real meaning. More like a veil that courts can hide lawyers behind. It’s really silly.

But I think we have some sort of obligation – moral, ethical, whatever – to jump in and at least help someone who is floundering.

]]> By: mirriam http://apublicdefender.com/2010/05/09/preempting-strickland/comment-page-1/#comment-60539 mirriam Tue, 11 May 2010 14:02:43 +0000 http://apublicdefender.com/?p=3051#comment-60539 The problem is that pesky word "effective". It's so vague-like and subjective. If you sleep through a trial where your client is acquitted, you were 'effective', right? If your client takes a plea to less than the maximum sentence but you never talked to him about the case (and admit as much on the record) you were 'effective', weren't you? The client who jumps up in the middle of trial is going to sit back down and yes,take his lumps. Who is going to step in? One of us? Break ranks? The problem is that pesky word “effective”. It’s so vague-like and subjective. If you sleep through a trial where your client is acquitted, you were ‘effective’, right? If your client takes a plea to less than the maximum sentence but you never talked to him about the case (and admit as much on the record) you were ‘effective’, weren’t you?

The client who jumps up in the middle of trial is going to sit back down and yes,take his lumps. Who is going to step in? One of us? Break ranks?

]]>