Man decides to act as own attorney


Locutus
+1
#1  Top Rated Post
...and naturally...

via Fark

Man acts as own attorney, tells judge, "You trippin'. I going to trial." As you might expect, this did not end well

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. - "A man who represents himself in court has a fool for a client." It's an axiom known by every lawyer -- and every judge -- in every courthouse in the land. But try telling that to Kurt James. The 23-year old was dead set on defending himself, despite facing two felonies -- both punishable by life in prison.

“I ain’t going to prison, “ snapped James, as he sat in Courtroom 6780 in the Broward County Courthouse. “You trippin’. I going to trial.”
No one is required to have an attorney. By law, you have the right to represent yourself...as long as you're deemed competent to do so. In this case, the court found that James was competent. Still, Judge Jeffrey Levenson tried to dissuade James from acting as his own lawyer, as he’s required by law, explaining the potential consequences.


more


Man decides to act as own attorney | News - Home
 
SLM
#2
Good Idea, Bad Idea Compilation - YouTube

Good Idea: Hiring a professional to defend you against car jacking charges in a court of law.

Bad Idea: What this guy did.

 
lone wolf
#3
Best part about representing yourself is the stuff you can put before a judge that lawyers are ethically bound not to. Sure, you're gonna fry - but inadequate representation is also grounds for an appeal - where the stuff a rules-bound lawyer couldn't bring forward as evidence is already entered.
 
damngrumpy
#4
This is why I believe in some cases we should introduce the charge of stupidity.
You can fix anything but you can't fix stupid. With the stuff already entered in
this trial they can appeal till hell won't have it and the outcome will be the same.
 
Niflmir
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolf View Post

Best part about representing yourself is the stuff you can put before a judge that lawyers are ethically bound not to. Sure, you're gonna fry - but inadequate representation is also grounds for an appeal - where the stuff a rules-bound lawyer couldn't bring forward as evidence is already entered.

No, the judge will just ban those things from being entered as evidence. See the recent Apple vs. Samsung goings on for an example. If you make the mistake of showing it to the jury anyways, you'll get contempt charges on top, and the judge will correctly instruct the jury to ignore it. That sort of thing cannot be appealed either.

Then you won't be able to use all of the actual defenses that a competent lawyer would have used if you did not bring them up in the first place. You cannot invent new defenses at appeal, but instead usually have to argue mistake of law since all the appeals court can do is to review the decision of the lower court based on the arguments they were presented with.
 
lone wolf
#6
Gee.... You mean I really DIDN'T remove the badges from two rotten cops? Guess I better surrender my Hero biscuit
 
shadowshiv
+1
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by Locutus View Post

By law, you have the right to represent yourself...as long as you're deemed competent to do so. In this case, the court found that James was competent.

Cases like this prove that there is no corrolation between competency and intelligence.
 
SLM
+1
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by shadowshiv View Post

Cases like this prove that there is no corrolation between competency and intelligence.

It's a very fine line between stupid and clever.

Such a Fine Line... | This Is Spinal Tap | Classic Clips - YouTube
 
shadowshiv
+1
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by SLM View Post

It's a very fine line between stupid and clever.

Such a Fine Line... | This Is Spinal Tap | Classic Clips - YouTube

He has hopped, skipped, and jumped way beyond that line.
 
SLM
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by shadowshiv View Post

He has hopped, skipped, and jumped way beyond that line.

Not unlike Nigel Tufnel, Lol.
 

Similar Threads

26