| cheapbag214s |
|
|
| |
| Joined: 27 Jun 2013 |
| Posts: 20570 |
Read: 0 topics
Warns: 0/5
|
| Location: England |
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Lawyer's testimony gets client's conviction flipped Legal Pad,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]
Schotl,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], a resident of Morgan Hill,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], had pleaded no contest to four drug charges in exchange for the prosecution dropping two others. That guaranteed Schotl a sentence of no more than 16 months in prison,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], which is what he got when sentenced by Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Hugh Mullin III.
But nearly three months after accepting the plea agreement,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], Schotl filed a motion to withdraw his plea,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], saying he hadn't understood the consequences because he had not been taking medication for attention deficit problems. The prosecutor,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], in opposing,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], announced he planned to call Schotl's lawyer,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], Anthony Pagkas of San Jose,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], to the witness stand.
Once there,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], Pagkas testified that he wouldn't let clients plead guilty if he wasn't confident they knew what they were doing. He also said that although Schotl seemed to need a bit more help than most clients in understanding the issues,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], Schotl's questions were "coherent and relevant."
But later during closing arguments,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], Pagkas told jurors that if Schotl had been on the proper medications,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], he wouldn't have taken the plea bargain,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], and instead would have insisted on going to trial.
The Sixth District said Pagkas' trial testimony contradicted his clients' claim - and Pagkas' own argument - that Schotl didn't understand the plea because he wasn't on his meds,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych].
"The fact that Pagkas' testimony supported the prosecution's position likely carried great weight with the court,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]," McAdams wrote. "This raises serious doubts regarding the propriety of Pagkas' continued participation as defense counsel."
McAdams also held that Pagkas' interest in showing his performance wasn't deficient "conflicted with defendant's interests in showing that he did not understand the proceeding,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]."
Justices Patricia Bamattre-Manoukian and Wendy Duffy concurred,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych].
The court also said Pagkas should have tried to cross-examine himself - a practice the court called "awkward but not impossible,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]."
"Rather than proceed in a question-and-answer fashion,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]," McAdams wrote,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], "Pagkas could have asked the court for leave to make a factual statement or an offer of proof in his capacity as witness on behalf of defendant."
The court returned the case to the trial court for the appointment of "conflict-free counsel" to consult with Schotl about a renewed motion to withdraw his plea,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych].
相关的主题文章：
[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]
[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]
[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]
[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]
[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]
[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]
[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]
[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]
[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]
[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]
[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]
[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]
[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]
[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]
[link widoczny dla zalogowanych] |
|
