Image via WikipediaAny criminal lawyer will tell you that the pointless and ineffective advice and assistance of trial counsel is one of the most frequently raised claims in state and federal post knowledge and conviction petitions. Considering the state of most state funded counseling these days, this is hardly surprising. Many state attorneys refuse to investigate their cases before trial, never meet with their clients before the trial, or fail to file any motions or object to inadmissible evidence during the trial. The causes and circumstances of your case come down to the quality of your criminal lawyer. Choosing one may be the most important legal decision you make.
the American bar association released a recent conclusion that indigent denial and defense in this country has reached a state of crisis. Many defenders are forced to handle well over a thousand cases a year, more than 3 times the ABA says a lawyer can adequately handle. In this challenging tax economy, public defenders in many communities simply don’t have the funds to give their clients the adequate denial and defense the constitution needs and demands.
Added to this burden, the very structure of our state and federal post knowledge and conviction review systems further contributes to the problem instead of providing a solution. Procedural efforts to review it make it difficult for defendants to challenge the force and effectiveness of their criminal lawyer. As a result, there is really no way of prosecuting lawyer quackery and incompetence, which leads to a organization and system of unaccountability on the part of a community funded criminal lawyer.
problems with state post knowledge and conviction review procedures
Many states require defendants challenging the pointless and ineffective advice and assistance of their trail counsel must do so through post knowledge and conviction review, rather than on direct appeal. Most states limit direct appeal to statements and actions directly reflected by the trial record. Because proving pointless and ineffective advice and assistance of trial counsel often depends upon a lawyer and his or her failure to do something, the legal proceedings need to take in more than just the direct appeal.
defense attorneys are given very short time windows to file such motions (often in as little as 30 days), so the denial and defense they get to represent them is often the same one who is the subject of the motion, which creates a conflict of intentness and interest. It is very difficult to make a case in such the exclusive and limited time period allowed.
Clients also have difficulty making legal claims asserting pointless and ineffective advice and assistance of trial counsel because they have no constitutional right to counsel on post knowledge and conviction review. A client who must then represent himself during a post knowledge and conviction review has to insanely and blindly deal with filing deadlines, substantiating evidence and prosecuting the case, which is beyond the capabilities of most of the accused.
the validity and value of a quality lawyer.
the American bar association released a recent conclusion that indigent denial and defense in this country has reached a state of crisis. Many defenders are forced to handle well over a thousand cases a year, more than 3 times the ABA says a lawyer can adequately handle. In this challenging tax economy, public defenders in many communities simply don’t have the funds to give their clients the adequate denial and defense the constitution needs and demands.
Added to this burden, the very structure of our state and federal post knowledge and conviction review systems further contributes to the problem instead of providing a solution. Procedural efforts to review it make it difficult for defendants to challenge the force and effectiveness of their criminal lawyer. As a result, there is really no way of prosecuting lawyer quackery and incompetence, which leads to a organization and system of unaccountability on the part of a community funded criminal lawyer.
problems with state post knowledge and conviction review procedures
Many states require defendants challenging the pointless and ineffective advice and assistance of their trail counsel must do so through post knowledge and conviction review, rather than on direct appeal. Most states limit direct appeal to statements and actions directly reflected by the trial record. Because proving pointless and ineffective advice and assistance of trial counsel often depends upon a lawyer and his or her failure to do something, the legal proceedings need to take in more than just the direct appeal.
defense attorneys are given very short time windows to file such motions (often in as little as 30 days), so the denial and defense they get to represent them is often the same one who is the subject of the motion, which creates a conflict of intentness and interest. It is very difficult to make a case in such the exclusive and limited time period allowed.
Clients also have difficulty making legal claims asserting pointless and ineffective advice and assistance of trial counsel because they have no constitutional right to counsel on post knowledge and conviction review. A client who must then represent himself during a post knowledge and conviction review has to insanely and blindly deal with filing deadlines, substantiating evidence and prosecuting the case, which is beyond the capabilities of most of the accused.
the validity and value of a quality lawyer.
Harris County Criminal Defense Attorney Andy Nolen has over 19 years experience representing persons accused of committing criminal violations of State and Federal law.
Houston, Texas Criminal Attorney Andy Nolen treats every person they represent as if they were a friend and neighbor. When you call, likely Andy Nolen will answer your call himself. You will be dealing with Attorneys, not secretaries, assistants, or answering machines.
If we can be of any assistance, or you just want to talk about your situation, please call Texas Criminal Defense Attorney Andy Nolen at 713-697-4373.
