back to article Ex-Fugees star accuses his lawyer of going full robot in corruption trial

Former Fugee, Prakazrel "Pras" Michel, who was convicted of criminal conspiracy charges over attempts to influence the administrations of two US presidents, wants a new trial because he believes his lawyer used AI to craft closing arguments, among other things. Michel filed a heavily redacted motion [PDF] yesterday, asking the …

  1. Neil Barnes Silver badge

    Oh brave new world

    in which 'the lawyer that I selected was an idiot' is grounds for appeal!

    1. RM Myers

      Re: Oh brave new world

      Appeals based on ineffective counsel have been around for decades, if not centuries. In the United States, these usually are based on the 6th amendment to the constitution, which gives defendants the right to a fair trial.

      1. Simian Surprise

        Re: Oh brave new world

        It's not easy at all, though. The government enjoys the presumption that the lawyer is competent and made decisions that could have been seen as reasonable at the time. E.g., "didn't make a different closing argument which might have worked better" is not usually going to cut it if the argument that the lawyer DID make is plausible.

        Plus, you also have to convince the court that you could have gotten a different result had your lawyer not ****ed up as you allege.

        It'll be interesting to see if "asked a computer what to say" qualifies, assuming the computer gave a reasonably lawyerly response. I bet it won't cut it.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Oh brave new world

      I'm curious to know how you can ensure during the selection process that the lawyer isn't an idiot? I'd have though the selection was first a matter of finding a lawyer that is available, and then making sure it's an affordable lawyer. The lawyer will have a law degree, since that's quite literally an obligation of the trade, so the intelligence is supposed to be guaranteed by a process established by the government..

      So, barring a very effective crystal ball, how can you know beforehand that the lawyer that yes, you select, will defend you appropriately?

  2. jmch Silver badge

    Unregistered lobbying

    OK, IANAL and I don't know the full ins and outs of this case, but what this guy is accused of is doing exactly what hundreds or thousands of other lobbyists do, with the only difference that they are 'registered'. I don't see how the lobbying is any less corrupt because it's registered, especially in the US where the interpretation of "donating money = free speech" means that any person or corporation is completely free to legally bribe any politician so long as the bribe is registered as a 'campaign contribution'.

    Seems to me that what he is guilty of is not playing the game by the insider rules. Or am I missing something really obvious??

  3. LessWileyCoyote

    In abstentia?

    Shouldn't it be in absentia?

  4. david 12 Silver badge

    In legal stuff, abstention is also a thing, and it seems to sometimes confuse legal spell checkers.

    See for example, where the incorrect spelling is used in the headline, but not in the body of the text.

  5. Jase Prasad

    Make Way!

    Lawyers are old hat, the quicker they are removed the better as most are self serving and they often are rewarded more than the plaintiff- case in point California’s recent HP age discrimination lawsuit, where the

    lawyers: plaintiffs reward ratio was 70:30

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like