Supreme Court rules for defendant’s right to not conceded guilt

0
63

This story really gets under my skin, not because the guy won, but because three judges voted against him! The case is a constitutional NO BRAINER!

It should have never even been a case to begin with. The trial judge should be impeached and possible sentenced to a life of selling hot dogs on a street corner.

“The Supreme Court says a lawyer for a criminal defendant cannot override his client’s wish to maintain his innocence at trial.”

“Lawyer Larry English said the evidence of McCoy’s guilt was overwhelming. English said his strategy was to seek a sentence of life in prison instead of death.”

“English’s view of McCoy’s chances led him to concede in his opening argument that McCoy “committed these crimes.” McCoy had told English not to do that.”

This is a classic Straw man set up to take away more of our rights. The guy is almost certainly guilty, so does that mean he has fewer rights? If you take the rights away from one you take them from us all.

“Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas dissented.”

Remember these judges and their views regarding our rights! They are lawyers and lawyers think only lawyers know what is best for us. These “judges” would have us automatically wave those rights when we hire (or get assigned) a lawyer.

The case is McCoy v. Louisiana, 16-8255.

read more at msn.com

 

 

 

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here