Headline in the Boston Globe:
Judge wants new counsel for man accused of stabbing lawyer
Yes, but how does the new counsel feel about it?
Objection
Headline in the Boston Globe: Judge wants new counsel for man accused of stabbing lawyer Yes, but how does the new counsel feel about it?
4 Comments
Perhaps the stabbing (alleged) should be considered privileged attorney-client communication.
Nevins is on to something here. But the a/c privilege is insufficient to properly protect the stabber in this instance, because it is merely an evidentiary rule. It might help in a civil action by the stabee, but in a criminal suit it is doubtful that the privilege extends to communications which form the basis of a criminal action. However, a constitutional amendment, unlike a privilege rule, creates an absolute right that trumps criminal liability. The trend of first amendment jurisprudence is to expand the definition of speech to include any action that could even remotely be interpreted as expressive of opinion. And what better way to communicate one’s feelings about legal representation than to attempt to murder your lawyer? This is the highest form of communication. Words—no matter how carefully crafted—are always going to be subject to interpretation; but an attempted murder leaves little room for ambiguity. So if the standard for “communication” is the same as for speech under first amendment jurisprudence, it should certainly be protected under the a/c privilege rule; and for the same reasons, the action should be constitutionally protected as free speech and therefore not subject to criminal liability.
Maybe Che Sosa is just a Shakespeare enthusiast.
On the news, the judge told the defendant that this (his third) was his last lawyer. How, exactly, does that work? Isn’t the state obligated to provide counsel, no matter what?