Author Topic: Ineffective assistance of counsel?  (Read 4982 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 17252
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
Re: Ineffective assistance of counsel?
« Reply #30 on: February 10, 2018, 04:21:PM »
i think rivlen was out of his depth considring it was hes first experience of defence work and he choose a murder case.

he should of started off with somthing miner.

or let somone else be his leader.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2018, 05:01:PM by nugnug »

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 21102
Re: Ineffective assistance of counsel?
« Reply #31 on: February 10, 2018, 04:28:PM »
i think rivlen was out of his depth considring it was hes first experience of defence work and he choose a murder case.

he should of started off with somthing miner.

or let somone else beb his leader.
Chapter 23 of Blood Relations recounts the pre-trial machinations of the Defence. It seems everybody was passing the case onto somebody else, from Bruce Bowler to David Napley to Paul Terezon, who eventually hired Rivlin. But it wasn't Rivlin's first experience of a murder trial.