President commuted the sentences of 8 crack cocaine defendants today and granted 11 pardons. Here is the list. Obama issued this statement about the crack commutations:
Three years ago, I signed the bipartisan Fair Sentencing Act, which...
[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]
Obama Commutes Sentences of 8 Crack Offenders
↧
↧
UK - 'Wicked' Grimsby woman (Xantya Ashton) falsely accused man of kidnap and another of sexual assault
Xantya AshtonOriginal Article
12/20/2013
A "wickedly dishonest and manipulative" teenager falsely accused a man of kidnapping her and another of sexual assault.
Student Xantya Ashton, 18, of Abbey Road, Grimsby, admitted perverting the course of justice between December 22, 2011, and September 2012, by accusing _____ of kidnapping her.
But a court heard that on the night she claimed she was kidnapped by Mr _____ and sexually assaulted by another man, she was actually having...
[[ This is a content summary only. Visit our blog for full links, videos, studies and more! ]]
↧
What are the penalties for prostitution in New York?
The penalties for prostitution crimes vary widely, depending on what types of crime has occurred. New York prosecutors and law enforcement officials tend to aggressively investigate prostitution-related crimes. Being charged with a prostitution crime can be devastating to not only the individuals charged, but also to their families. Some of the prostitution related crimes, and [...]
↧
FL - Officer (Brian Morales) fired for having sex with teen
Brian MoralesOriginal Article
Boy Florida sure is full of sex offending police officers!
12/19/2013
By JOSÉ PATIÑO GIRONA
TAMPA - Tampa police arrested one of their own Thursday, charging a school resource officer at Blake High School with having sex with a 17-year-old female student at the school.
Brian Morales was charged with eight counts of felony sexual activity with a minor. He becomes the latest in a string of officers who have been terminated this year after being accused of...
[[ This is a content summary only. Visit our blog for full links, videos, studies and more! ]]
↧
FL - Former JSO corrections officer (Leon Perry Brooks Sr.) facing child porn charges
Leon Perry Brooks Sr.Original Article
Boy Florida sure is full of sex offending police officers!
12/20/2013
JACKSONVILLE - A former JSO corrections officer is facing charges related to child pornography.
Leon Perry Brooks Sr., 39, is facing two counts of receipt of child pornography, one count of distribution of child pornography, and one count of possession of child pornography.
The indictment (PDF) shows the reported offenses took place between June 19, 2012, and May 20, 2013, and...
[[ This is a content summary only. Visit our blog for full links, videos, studies and more! ]]
↧
↧
Man arrested when probation officer allegedly finds marijuana
When people in the Lafayette area have been convicted of a felony and are out on parole or are on probation, they need to be extremely careful with their behavior. Parole or probation officers frequently check up on people in...
↧
Public Service Announcement to Arrestees
The following situation has popped up several times in the last month, so let's talk about it.
FACTS (a): client gets arrested on a drug charge, and the cops want to look at the phone in order to obtain dealer/transaction data (usually in text messages). Client refuses to provide the password (usually a 4 or 5 digit code) to the phone. Client gets arrested and handcuffed. Later, cops offer to permit client to make a phone call to family. Client unlocks phone to make call, cop then grabs phone and searches it now that its unlocked.
FACTS (b): A variation on this fact pattern has been that, once the client is arrested, the cop seizes the phone and figure out it is password locked. So, they offer the handcuffed arrestee an opportunity to make a phone call, only to snatch the phone back once the phone is unlocked. Rude, but true.
Yep, pretty dirty trick. And yes, evidence found as a result of such a ploy will be suppressed, as the search of the phone is clearly unconstitutional. That being said, I still want to warn people that there are deceptive law enforcement officers--if you've read this website much, I didn't even have to say that.
Drug arrests are always intriguing to the police. Every new cop thinks he can track down a Colombian drug lord if he can just get enough information from a white middle class high school kid he just busted for misdemeanor possession of marijuana. Often, police aren't concerned about a misdemeanor amount of weed, they want to know where the weed came from. A familiar line is "Tell us who your dealer is, and we won't arrest you." The problem is, most people who possess drugs are not willing to snitch on their dealer. Cops know this, but they are now armed with tons of personal information via cell phones. Yep, just look at the texts on a cell phone long enough, and you can probably find a drug dealer in there somewhere--assuming the cell phone belongs to someone arrested for drug possession (searching my mom's texts will only lead you to choir practice or Bible study). Searching a citizen's cell phone after a drug arrest is not legal, but it happens all the time.
I encourage everyone (even my mom!) to password protect your cellphone. This can keep the police, and thieves, out of your private business. After all, we Americans value our privacy. When we mail something, we seal the envelope--not because we have something to hide, but because we want privacy. When we go home, we shut the door behind us. We close the bathroom door. None of this is done to hide illegal activities, its done because we want our privacy.
Basically, when law enforcement searches a cell phone without a warrant, such a search equates to a "general evidence-gathering search" and thus a warrant must be obtained. I'll be writing about the search and seizure aspects of this issue in the coming months (i.e., whenever I get around to it). For more details on how this issue has come up in drug cases, check out my article "Cellphone Passwords Protect Against Big Brother's Invasions".
↧
Original SORA Decision,
In this Criminal case, defendant, a 78 year old man, was convicted by plea of guilty of one count of Assault in the Second Degree and one count of Attempted Sexual Abuse in the First Degree. Thereafter, he was sentenced...
↧
MO - Former police officer (Timothy H. Jones) sentenced for coercing sex from motorist
Timothy H. JonesOriginal Article
12/20/2013
By Paul Hampel
Country Club Hills - A former Country Club Hills police officer convicted of telling a woman motorist she could either have sex with him or be arrested for drunken driving was sentenced on Friday in St. Louis County Circuit Court to one year in the county jail.
Timothy H. Jones, 50, of Troy, Mo., was found guilty in October of pulling over a 24-year-old woman on Nov. 10, 2010, on suspicion of drunken driving on Interstate 70 near...
[[ This is a content summary only. Visit our blog for full links, videos, studies and more! ]]
↧
↧
KS - Former Kansas deputy (Glenn Lippard) arrested on sex charges
Glenn LippardOriginal Article
12/18/2013
Wichita - A Salina man was arrested in Wichita Tuesday on several sex charges involving a girl under the age of 16.
Glenn Lippard is alleged to have had sexual contact with the girl between December 25th of 2012, and March 12th of 2013 at a south Salina home.
Salina Police were contacted December 14th by a social worker concerning the incidents. Lippard was booked into the Saline County Jail on 12-counts of rape, 12-counts of aggravated indecent...
[[ This is a content summary only. Visit our blog for full links, videos, studies and more! ]]
↧
Judge Orders DNA Testing in Case of Ohio Death Row Inmate
On Thursday, the Akron Beacon Journal reported that Portage County Common Pleas Judge John Enlow ruled that evidence should be re-tested for DNA in the case of Tyrone Noling, who is on death row for the double murder of an elderly Ohio couple. Noling's attorneys argue that DNA testing of a cigarette butt found near the crime scene could point to the actual perpetrator, proving that Noling was wrongfully convicted more than 15 years ago. Two previous requests for a new round of testing were denied by the Portage County Common Pleas Court. In 1990, Bearnhardt and Cora Hartig were found dead on the kitchen floor of their home in Atwater Township, Ohio. They were both shot in the head. Although no physical evidence or witnesses linked Noling to the crime, he was convicted and sentenced to death in prison in 1996. The conviction was based partially on Noling's minor criminal history and also on the false confessions of three co-defendants who implicated him in the murders. Those men have since recanted their confessions. A cigarette found near the Hartig home after the double-murder was tested for DNA in 1996. While results excluded Noling and his co-defendants, new technology would have the capacity to point to an actual perpetrator, assuming that the guilty individual's DNA is in the CODIS database. Given these new developments, in January of this year, Carrie Wood of the Ohio Innocence Project requested advanced DNA testing of the cigarette butt based on a 2010 law enacted in Ohio that allows for retesting of biological evidence if defendants can show that advances in DNA testing could disclose new evidence. Judge Enlow's ruling earlier this week is a slight victory for Noling. It says that the cigarette butt must be re-tested. On the judge's orders, however, tests will be performed by the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation, a concern for Noling's attorneys. They had requested that the tests be performed by Orchid Cellmark, described by the Journal as "one of the oldest and most experienced DNA labs in the nation," and "the lab used in the process that led to Clarence Elkins winning his freedom after he was wrongly convicted in a 1998 Summit County murder case." According to the Journal: "Wood told Enlow that Cellmark has the most sophisticated equipment in the nation, and that if the defense has only one chance to test the cigarette butt, 'we should do it thoroughly and we should do it correctly.' " Wood is concerned that Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation may find only a trace amount of DNA on the cigarette butt. "What we want is the best chance to get a result and find the perpetrator's DNA," Wood told the Journal. "Unfortunately, the court's order today doesn't do that. While it moves the case forward, it doesn't get the most advanced information.Read the full story here.
↧
Why Trinity Western Law School is Good For Canada
Elaine Craig, an assistant professor at Dalhousie Law School wrote an article in the Globe and Mail on December 18 concerning the accreditation of Trinity Western University’s Law School. As a Vancouver lawyer and arbitrator and a committed Christian I have listened to the critics rage on since TWU made their application to the Federation […]
↧
MI - The destruction of my family
The following was sent to us via the USER STORY form and posted with the users permission.
By Lemmony:
In 2005 I was convicted as a sex offender for being introduced to a girl in a bar I was unaware was underage.
It is now almost 20 years later and I have teenage children and a family of my own. Every year the registry's keep adding new sentencing. My children have been beaten, sexually harassed in school, tormented in church, refused association with friends. Both have attempted suicide and...
[[ This is a content summary only. Visit our blog for full links, videos, studies and more! ]]
↧
↧
Prior armed bank robbery was admissible under Rule 404(b) and disruptive Defendant waived his right to be present at trial
The Defendants in U.S. v Sterling appealed their federal criminal convictions for 1) armed bank robbery, 2) use of a firearm during and in relation to a crime violence, and 3) possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. On appeal the defendant's challenged the admission of their prior convictions admitted pursuant to Rule 404(b). The facts of the robbery reveal that a masked man vaulted over the teller counter at a bank in Smyrna, Georgia and robbed the bank using a silver handgun. The man exited the band and disappeared from the view of witnesses. Another man was seen removing a piece of paper covering the license tag of a vehicle while leaning over the trunk. Later the police found a car matching the description of the getaway car driven by one of the defendants but the suspected bank robber was found. After the vehicle was towed and impounded by a towing company, the tow truck driver saw a man matching the bank robber's description lying on the flatbed next to the open backseat door of the car. In the trunk, police found a bag with clothing matching the description of the bank robber's clothing as well as a silver firearm.
The 404b evidence stemmed from a bank robbery in 1995 where both defendants were convicted of the robbery. The Court applies a 3-part test to determine the admissibility of evidence or prior crimes under Rule 404(b):
1. The evidence must be relevant to an issue other than the defendant's character.
2. Sufficient evidence must be presented to allow a jury to find that the defendant committed the extrinsic act.
3. The probative value of the evidence must not be substantially outweighed by its undue prejudice.
The jury was told it could consider the evidence for the purpose of intent, plan, preparation, and lack of accident or mistake. The court found the evidence of the prior crime was admissible because it involved both defendants robbing a bank together using a gun in the commission of the felony.
One defendant claimed his right to be present a trial under Federal Rule 43 was violated. This defendant announced that he did not want anything to do with the trial. He did agree to speak with the court in an interview room with attorneys and the court reporter present. The judge advised the defendant that his repeated interruption would result in his being labeled a disruptive defendant and removed from court, and his continued actions would be deemed a waiver of his right to be present at trial. After the district judge found to be a disruptive defendant, the court reconvened in the courtroom and the judge stated that the defendant had waived his right to present. The trial continued without his presence though the judge provided a live video feed of the proceedings and his counsel was permitted to meet with him during the breaks. Rule 43 requires that the defendant voluntarily absent "after the trial has begun." The defendant argued that the under the trial process had not begun since the judge did not bring him in front of the prospective jury to advise him that the trial was beginning. The Court found that the trial began on the day of jury selection without respect to whether the defendant is present at the time prospective jurors enter the courtroom.
↧
SC - Corrections officer (Nicolas Sheldon Brown) arrested for sexually abusing minor
Nicolas Sheldon BrownOriginal Article
12/20/2013
By Jason Old
RICHLAND COUNTY (WIS) - A South Carolina Department of Corrections officer has been arrested and charged with criminal sexual conduct with a minor, according to Richland County Sheriff Leon Lott.
Lott said 34-year-old Nicolas Sheldon Brown was arrested and charged on Friday after investigators determined that he was sexually abusing a young girl since 2009.
The sheriff said the abuse began when the alleged victim was...
[[ This is a content summary only. Visit our blog for full links, videos, studies and more! ]]
↧
The Lawyer and the Psychic
I feel for Michael Busby. According to him, he was having marital trouble, so he went to a professional. He paid good money—$530—for a solution to his problem. And things went wrong. The professional took another $2,700 from him, which … Continue reading →
↧
N.J. bill to shield texting teens stalls
↧
↧
License Suspended Due to a Los Angeles DUI? 3 Tips to Deal with the Annoyances
One of the most stinging, annoying punishments for a DUI in Los Angeles is the license suspension.
Even if this is your first ever DUI – indeed, your first time doing anything illegal – prosecutors can ask the Court to suspend your license for six months or a year or even longer, depending on what happened. Whether you’re a UCLA or USC student, who needs a California driver's license to attend class; or you’re a single mom of three who needs a license to get to and from work, you want to avoid or at least minimize the suspension.
Here are 3 strategic ideas:
1. Retain a Los Angeles DUI defense lawyer, sooner than later.
Don’t wait. The clock is ticking, and a suspension may soon automatically go into effect. A seasoned attorney can tell you how you can fight back. Perhaps you can stop the suspension or at least obtain more lenient terms.
2. Once you know how many days (or months) you'll need to go without a license, make an action plan.
First, determine your ideal outcome. How do you want the next four months (or however long the suspension will last) to work? Make a list of goals. For instance:
• Keep my job;
• Make sure I can get the kids to and from school and doctors appointments, etc.
• Stay out of legal trouble (i.e.. don’t violate the terms of the suspension);
• Arrange alternative transportation, so all bases are covered.
Once you’ve got a solid list of goals, work backwards to try to achieve them resourcefully. Ask yourself questions. For instance:
• Can the kids take the bus for the next three months?
• Can a neighbor or nanny help with errands?
• Can your spouse or partner help with childcare responsibilities?
An experienced Los Angeles DUI defense lawyer can advise you about this plan.
3. Execute your action plan, and stay the course.
Setbacks may happen, no matter how well you plan. For instance, you may not be able to anticipate an illness in the family. Or your boss who originally agreed to let you telecommute may change her mind and demand you come to the office every day. Solve such problems when they occur, and be creative and resourceful.
For help dealing with your Los Angeles DUI charges, connect with Attorney Michael Kraut of the Kraut Law Group to schedule a free, no pressure consultation.
↧
What happens if the officer does not show up for DOL Hearing?
If you timely subpoenaed the officer or trooper (10 business days) the DOL case will be dismissed by the Hearing Officer. Typically, the Hearing Officers wait 24 hours (some will dismiss immediately) to hear from the trooper or officer in...
↧
ALLOCATION OF DECISION-MAKING AS TO THE EXERCISE OF A CLIENT'S RIGHT TO TESTIFY AT THE GRAND JURY
byJill Paperno, Second Assistant Monroe County Public Defender As described in an earlier post, the law provides guidance as to which decisions are made by a client and which are made by the defense attorney. Decisions that are considered fundamental - generally those that are granted to a defendant by the Constitution, or cases interpreting the Constitution - are to be made by the client. Ideally (and we should be striving for the ideal) those decisions are made after thoughtful, informed and considered review with counsel. Decisions that are strategic are to be made by the defense attorney. Ideally (yes, striving again) those decisions are made after thoughtful, informed and considered review with the client. So which type of decision is the right to testify before the grand jury? If it is a fundamental right we have to discuss it with our clients and they have to waive the right. But day after day I see defendants appearing in court whose attorneys have never discussed grand jury testimony with them. How do I know? In some cases they are meeting counsel for the first time on a preliminary hearing date even though counsel was assigned before the grand jury date. In the holding area they ask me, a lawyer they don't know, who their lawyer is. When their case is called the prosecutor presents a grand jury certification to the court, so we know the case went to the grand jury without the client having been advised of grand jury rights.The right to be prosecuted on an indictment is contained in the state constitution. (The U.S. Constitution has been interpreted as not requiring indictment for prosecution on all felonies, so different states handle this issue in various ways - see http://campus.udayton.edu/~grandjur/stategj/funcsgj.htm) And the New York state Constitution does not include the right of a defendant to testify - that is contained in the Criminal Procedure Law, section 190.50. So this right looks different than some of the other rights we know are fundamental and are protected by the Constitution, and which only a client can waive. And grand jury decision-making happens behind the scenes. There is no judge asking for the client's decision or whether the client is aware of the right. (But remember - the decision of whether to appeal is not in the Constitution and happens behind the scenes, and it is fundamental.)There is a split among the attorneys I know about whether the right to testify before the grand jury is a fundamental right. I believe it is for the reasons that follow.The Court of Appeals has stated that it is not per se ineffective assistance for defense counsel to fail to facilitate a client's appearance before the grand jury. This case is indistinguishable from People v. Wiggins, 89 N.Y.2d 872, 873, 653 N.Y.S.2d 91, 675 N.E.2d 845 (1996), where defense counsel arrived at the grand jury after the indictment had been voted. Indeed, until the indictment was handed down there was no felony charged. Here, defense counsel also failed to secure defendant's appearance before the grand jury In Wiggins, we held that failure of defense counsel to facilitate defendant's testimony before the grand jury does not, per se, amount to the denial of effective assistance of counsel. In this case, defendant failed to establish that he was prejudiced by the failure of his attorney to effectuate his appearance before the grand jury. Significantly, there is no claim that had he testified in the grand jury, the outcome would have been different.People v. Simmons, 10 NY3d 946.But there are cases that reverse convictions when defense counsel has failed to effectuate a client's desire to testify before the grand jury. In a Kings County Court 2002 decision Judge Reichbach noted the lack of clarity and guidance from the courts on this issue:The initial question presented is whether, as a matter of constitutional right, the decision to testify before the Grand Jury is one that can only be made or waived by the defendant. This requires a determination as to whether or not a defendant's right to testify in the Grand Jury is a fundamental or constitutional one. Both the United States Supreme Court and New York's Court of Appeals have enumerated these decisions that are so fundamental that they can only be made by the defendant, not his attorney. The United States Supreme Court in Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745, 103 S.Ct. 3308, 77 L.Ed.2d 987 (1983), noted that decisions such as whether to waive a jury, whether to testify at trial and whether to take an appeal are so fundamental that they can only be made by the defendant (citing ABA Standards on Criminal Justice, On Defense Functions, Standard 4–5.2 [Second Edition] ). In People v. White, 73 N.Y.2d 468, 541 N.Y.S.2d 749, 539 N.E.2d 577 (1989), New York's Court of Appeals likewise found that fundamental decisions include whether to plead guilty, whether to waive a jury trial, whether to testify on one's behalf and whether to take an appeal. The Court of Appeals in People v. Ferguson, 67 N.Y.2d 383, 502 N.Y.S.2d 972, 494 N.E.2d 77 (1986) indicated that this list was not exhaustive. The Court of Appeals has made it plain that the right to testify before a Grand Jury is not one of constitutional dimension, but rather a right provided by statute. People v. Smith, 87 N.Y.2d 715, 642 N.Y.S.2d 568, 665 N.E.2d 138 (1996). While not of constitutional dimension, nevertheless the Court of Appeals has determined it to be a “valued” right, a “significant and substantial” right which must be “scrupulously protected”. People v. Evans, 79 N.Y.2d 407, 414, 583 N.Y.S.2d 358, 592 N.E.2d 1362 (1992); People v. Smith, 87 N.Y.2d 715, 720, 721, 642 N.Y.S.2d 568, 665 N.E.2d 138 (1996); People v. Corrigan, 80 N.Y.2d 326, 332, 590 N.Y.S.2d 174, 604 N.E.2d 723 (1992). While clearly, an attorney has the right to make day-to-day decisions governing a case, and those decisions will be binding on a client, People v. Jordan, 96 A.D.2d 1060, 466 N.Y.S.2d 486 (2nd Dept., 1983) there is apparently no New York authority indicating whether this significant statutory right to testify before the Grand Jury, once invoked, may be waived without the defendant's permission.People v. Edwards, 192 Misc.2d 473, 475-76, 747 N.Y.S.2d 688, 690 (N.Y.Sup.,2002)In a great summary of the law and conclusions to be drawn about whether a client gets to make his decision, Judge Reichbach, citing numerous cases, wrote:Many cases hold that a failure by defense counsel to secure a client's right to testify before the Grand Jury by failing to file a cross Grand Jury notice is not, by itself, ineffective assistance of counsel. People v. Sturgis, 199 A.D.2d 549, 606 N.Y.S.2d 241 (2nd Dept., 1993); People v. Bundy, 186 A.D.2d 357, 588 N.Y.S.2d 167 (1st Dept., 1992); People v. Otis, 186 A.D.2d 828, 589 N.Y.S.2d 816 (2nd Dept., 1992) .... On the other hand, appellate courts have found that subsequent to the filing of a cross Grand Jury Notice, errors by counsel which have the effect of precluding the defendant from testifying constitute ineffective assistance requiring dismissal of the indictment. People v. Jimenez, 180 A.D.2d 757, 580 N.Y.S.2d 393 (2nd Dept., 1992); People v. Lincoln, 80 A.D.2d 877, 436 N.Y.S.2d 782 (2nd Dept., 1981); People v. Moskowicz, 192 A.D.2d 317, 595 N.Y.S.2d 464 (1st Dept., 1993).Judge Reichbach continued by setting forth his interpretation for the basis for these two seemingly inconsistent lines of cases, and reconciling them. He found that the distinction was between cases in which a defendant's desire to testify had already been communicated to the prosecution, in which failure of counsel to act was clearly in conflict with a client's stated interest, in contrast with those where no such notice had been filed. (But he also noted another court's seemingly accurate but differing conclusion that this rationale wold find it was worse to do half the job - serving notice but not following through - than no job at all. And that makes no sense, right?) (For a review of factors leading a different court to conclude the decision is strategic, see People v. Cox, 2007 WL 5160499 (N.Y.Sup.), 4 (N.Y.Sup.,2007.))So if failing to inform a client is not per se ineffectiveness, are we off the hook? I don't think so, for a few reasons.First, if the client has this right and we are striving to provide client centered representation, honoring our clients' rights to be involved in charting their course, it seems completely inconsistent to fail to advise them of this process and their right to participate in it.Second, the statute clearly protects a client's right to testify before the grand jury. The decisions that fail to find ineffectiveness when a client claims the attorney did not enable him or her to testify before the grand jury seem to reflect that the issue was not preserved, or raised on the record below. Of course it wasn’t – the client was not aware it was an issue or had to be raised. Perhaps the client didn’t even know s/he had the right to testify. And in the recent Fourth Department decision, People v. Brumfield (Fourth Dept., Sept. 27 2013), the Court emphasized the importance of a defendant's right to testify before the grand jury, stating,It is well settled that a defendant’s statutory right to testify before the grand jury “ ‘must be scrupulously protected’ ” (People v Smith, 87 NY2d 715, 721, quoting People v Corrigan, 80 NY2d 326, 332). We conclude that, because defendant complied with the requirements of CPL 190.50 (5) but was nevertheless denied his right to testify before the grand jury, the court erred in denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment.Additionally, if we are required to discuss the grand jury right with a client, how can we then decide the client does not get to exercise that right.Given this emphasis on the importance of a defendant's right to testify before the grand jury, we should be at least as vigilant in protecting it as the Fourth Department, right?’And if the failure of the prosecution to allow a defendant to testify is a violation of a client’s rights so substantial that an indictment gets dismissed when the defendant is deprived of that right, how is it less of a violation if we cause the deprivation?Finally – sometimes we get it wrong. In a case I handled recently, I begged and pleaded with a client not to testify. The client went in (after we prepared for the testimony I so feared) and the case was no billed. What if I had decided not to let him testify?The alternative view raises the concern that if we let our clients testify in ways that damage their cases, then we may be held ineffective. But if we write those CYA letters to the file and client, then how is this different from any other circumstance when our client has made a fundamental decision that we disagree with –such as taking a case to trial when we believe the evidence against them is rock solid and they should be pleading. So although the right is not usually described as a fundamental right, I believe that it is – and that at some point the Court of Appeals will recognize the obligation of defense counsel to honor a client’s decision to testify even if defense counsel disagrees.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
