explainer
columns
- Hockey Moms vs. Soccer Moms
Which is the more important voting demographic?
Jacob Leibenluft
posted Sept. 4, 2008 - Vetting Vet
The origins of vet, verb tr.
Juliet Lapidos
posted Sept. 3, 2008 - Aerial Wolf Gunning 101
What is it, and why does vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin support the practice?
Samantha Henig
posted Sept. 2, 2008 - How To Replace a Vice Presidential Nominee
What would happen if the McCain campaign had to ditch Sarah Palin?
Jacob Leibenluft
posted Sept. 2, 2008 - Drunk and High in Denver
Does alcohol have more of an effect when you're up in the mountains?
Jacob Leibenluft
posted Aug. 28, 2008 - Search for more explainer articles
- Subscribe to the explainer RSS feed
- View our complete explainer archive
What if your lawyer isn't really a lawyer?
Bruce GottliebPosted Wednesday, July 15, 1998, at 5:11 PM ET
Wednesday's New York Times reports that a con man with no legal degree served as a lawyer for perhaps 100 defendants. This is said to be good news for convicted defendants and bad news for prosecutors. At first glance, this seems backwards. Would you be happy to hear that your cardiac surgeon is a fraud?
The reason convicted defendants are happy is because this news entitles them to retrials. The constitution guarantees accused criminals a defense conducted by a licensed attorney. Because in this instance their counsel was not really an attorney, convicted defendants can demand a new trial (with an authentic attorney, of course). Though the law is not clear on the subject, in all likelihood defendants need not even show that their ersatz attorney was incompetent. (Initial reports suggest that, in fact, he was quite competent.) It is enough to show that he was not licensed. For example, defendants represented by disbarred attorneys have been awarded retrials without proving that their defense was inadequate.
What's so great about a retrial? It is true that, in principle, a retrial can still result in a conviction. But if prosecution witnesses have died or forgotten things, then their testimony won't be used in the retrial. Even transcripts from the previous trial won't be used in the retrial, since they were admitted when the defendant had inadequate counsel.
Explainer thanks Professor Geoffrey Hazard of the University of Pennsylvania Law School.
feedback | about us | help | advertise | newsletters | mobile
User Agreement and Privacy Policy | All rights reserved
- Today's Headlines
- [audio] New 'Gatorade Slow' Targets Lazy Demographic
Fri, 05 Sep 2008 01:00:35 -0400 - Miracle Dog Gives Birth To Septuplets
Thu, 04 Sep 2008 10:00:50 -0400 - Abortion Not Linked To Depression
Thu, 04 Sep 2008 09:25:25 -0400 - » More from the Onion
So Long, St. PaulGerson | When Less Is Less
Robinson: Plain-Spoken RacismMeyerson: GOP's Two AmericasCapehart: All About Sarah
- Telnaes: The McCain and Palin Show | Toles
- Krauthammer: Can Palin Pull an Obama?
- Robinson: Republicans Discover Identity Politics
- Dionne: McCain Forfeits His Maverick Card
- Today's Headlines
- Gerson, Waldman on the GOP Convention Rhetoric
Wed, 03 Sep 2008 04:18:14 GMT - Five Surprising Benefits of Massage
Thu, 04 Sep 2008 22:49:59 GMT - What Women Want from Palin
Thu, 04 Sep 2008 22:31:38 GMT - » More from Newsweek
- Today's Headlines
- Living Down to Expectations
Thu, 4 September 2008 21:11:52 GMT - Busted Brand
Thu, 4 September 2008 18:58:59 GMT - NFL Shorthand
Thu, 4 September 2008 20:26:24 GMT - » More from The Root

explainer









