This is a mess. Harvard, in response to pressure from idiots who have no business venturing beyond Mom's apron strings, has taken a stance in opposition to the principle of due process and (in that connection) the idea of a right to the assistance of counsel. https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2019/5/11/winthrop-faculty-deans-to-leave/#.XNbmt-rSpmQ.twitter
Posts
From a discussion of the Garza case recently argued before SCOTUS, I see this passage: http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/10/argument-preview-can-a-criminal-defense-lawyer-refuse-to-file-an-appeal-from-a-guilty-plea-because-of-an-appeal-waiver/ "In support of its underlying objective of promoting the broad enforceability of appeal waivers, the state strongly implies that this case is governed by a simple syllogism. Ineffective assistance of counsel presumes the existence of a right to counsel. The right to counsel has to be attached to some underlying procedural right, such as the right to trial or the right to appeal. Here, however, Garza waived his right to appeal. Thus, his attorney could not possibly have rendered ineffective assistance with respect to any appeal." I don't see the syllogism in that passage, though there is clearly a claim that a "simple syllogism" is involved. The syllogism that the author has in mind might be a modus ponens , thu...
Really? This one had to be argued? McCoy was on trial for his life. He made very clear to his lawyer that he did not want to plead guilty and wanted an alibi defense. His lawyer bluntly told the jury that McCoy was guilty. McCoy is now on death row. It is possible to extend some sympathy to Mr English, McCoy's lawyer. He may well have believed that the best chance to save his client's life was to admit guilt and ask for a life sentence as an act of mercy. Nonetheless, that wasn't his call. A lawyer is the agent of his client, not the principal. .