Is 'I took on more work than I can do' really a valid reason to hold up nationally relevant and important cases? I'm sure it isn't, so why make that appeal? It just looks a bit Better Call Saul, y'know?
A US federal judge has rejected convicted Silk Road kingpin Ross Ulbricht's request for a new trial, despite his attorneys' claims of misdeeds on the part of government agents and prosecutors. "The evidence of Ulbricht's guilt was, in all respects, overwhelming," an unsympathetic District Judge Katherine Forrest wrote in a …
Attorneys make bad arguments every day without needing to be paid off to do so. Especially when your client appears to have been caught with his hand in the figurative cookie jar. If he didn't consider alternate strategies before leading off with a defense that was a spectacular non-starter that's really his problem (and the client's), not the court's.
Re: ineffective assistance of counsel, it's not likely to make much difference in the end given that one of the elements of that requires showing that but for the ineffectiveness, the outcome would have been different. Again, hand, in cookie jar. Very high bar there. Also, appeals follow after sentencing so right now it's a moot point.
Once, when I was a kid, a lawyer told me you need two things to win:
1) a legally plausible argument. 2) sympathy for the defendant.
Ross Ulbricht lost any chance for sympathy when everybody learned he tried to kill his friends. -- That's what the public thinks. Actually, the gov doesn't seem to be pursuing any of the six murder-for-hire indictments. So did the prosecution just push the murder stuff just to shape public opinion? Maybe. I don't take sides on many criminal cases because often both the prosecution and the defendant are bad in my book.
A new Silk Road is already available. Actually, there's more than one.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021