How bad can SD lawyer be and still be deemed "effective"? Pretty bad.

[TMF]

[quote name="R_Bert" post="1165857" timestamp="1404654558"][b][i][u] In spite of his approach, he is a known set of resources used by Drudge Report, Legal Insurrection, and TTAG, and I have seen him on Fox News, etc. Say what you want, but he has captured the attention of the media, and voices out his opinion nationally. [/quote] I have friends and former colleagues who have been published in the major gun mags and websites. Some operate their own part time shooting schools. I may see them on Fox News as an expert for the field they work in. However, if they came one here, even as a friend of mine, I'd still inform them that it is not proper to sell their wares unless they're a benefactor. The fact this guy has done it here before, been called out on it and refused to acknowledge my accusation shows his level of character. I don't much care what credentials he has next to his name. Hell, isn't our president a constitutional lawyer? What further pissed me off was him misrepresenting a case that occurred in my community. He brought it up to bring up his seminars, but the fact that he is arguing that this case has bearing on legally armed Tennesseans is beyond ridiculous, and it makes him lose all credibility in my eyes. Dude is a bulls*** artist. Just because he can talk well and sell his brand to the masses doesn't mean he knows better than you or I. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Varmint]

Not to change the subject, but on that multiple life sentences thing, I see that happen occasionally... Why is it necessary to convict someone of multiple life sentences?  Seems like a life sentence should only need one implementation to be effective.

 

 In case one of them is overturned, you still have one ?

[DaveTN]

Not to change the subject, but on that multiple life sentences thing, I see that happen occasionally... Why is it necessary to convict someone of multiple life sentences?  Seems like a life sentence should only need one implementation to be effective.

Because life isn’t life. It could be 25 years. Unfortunately most of those multiple life sentences run concurrently not consecutive; so they are still eligible for parole. I would guess the parole board would be less likely to parole someone with multiple life sentences.

[tnguy]

I see he conveniently mentioned his seminars AND his book in this thread. Seems like if I was a TGO vendor who advertised classes here I'd be pretty pissed. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And his blog

[tnguy]

Not to change the subject, but on that multiple life sentences thing, I see that happen occasionally... Why is it necessary to convict someone of multiple life sentences?  Seems like a life sentence should only need one implementation to be effective.

 

Well, for one thing, each crime needs its own punishment I would think, particularly for something like murder. But for another, life doesn't really mean life, being bartered down and shortened so you need to stack them up to make them count.

[No_0ne]

Not to change the subject, but on that multiple life sentences thing, I see that happen occasionally... Why is it necessary to convict someone of multiple life sentences?  Seems like a life sentence should only need one implementation to be effective.

 

Each charge is considered separate to the others, each carries it's own sentence.  There are different ways the sentences can be served, concurrently or consecutively,  sometimes this is prescribed by law, sometimes it's pretty much up to the court to decide which to impose.

[tnguy]

What further pissed me off was him misrepresenting a case that occurred in my community. He brought it up to bring up his seminars, but the fact that he is arguing that this case has bearing on legally armed Tennesseans is beyond ridiculous, and it makes him lose all credibility in my eyes. Dude is a bulls*** artist. Just because he can talk well and sell his brand to the masses doesn't mean he knows better than you or I. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I agree. This seems like a very atypical "self defense" case (in fact not a self defense case at all) and its use seems very disingenuous and doesn't imbue much faith in the OPs motivations. Perhaps this thread should be moved to tndrugdealsgonebad.com?

Edited July 6, 2014 by tnguy

[Stegall Law Firm]

I agree. This seems like a very atypical "self defense" case (in fact not a self defense case at all) and its use seems very disingenuous and doesn't imbue much faith in the OPs motivations. Perhaps this thread should be moved to tndrugdealsgonebad.com?

 

I think his practices and his system are maybe not unethical but they are shady.  He goes around the country to other states, places where he is not licensed to practice law, is not associating with local counsel, and I'm betting has never set foot in a courtroom, and teaching the law of that state.  He says it right there on his site: he'll be using cases, jury instructions and statutes from that particular state.  That is, in the words of Sonny Crockett, major uncool.  I go to nationwide CLEs with lawyers from Texas, California, you name it, teaching all kinds of subjects, but these are just general strategies, not state-specific practices.  If you want to learn Tennessee self defense law you better get it from somebody other than the guy spending a couple nights at the Days Inn down the street.

 

Also I'm not too impressed with his ability to analyze cases.  He apparently thinks the case he started this thread about is a big deal in self defense law.  It is not.  It is hardly about self defense.  It is an extremely common post conviction appeal on the Strickland v. Washington elements of ineffective assistance of counsel.  Thousands of these are heard each year in Tennessee (and other states I'm sure).  It is an unreported decision with little precedential value.  His main argument is that the trial lawyer did a bad job by not knowing the law central to their defense.  When I pointed out that the defendant was facing about 150 years and received a whopping 22, I got...no response.  Yes that little fact was just ignored.  I'm guessing that he's got such an erection for this case because it came out last year and so he can spin it on his unwitting customers as a new (maybe even groundbreaking!) and "important" legal decision on what a lawyer should and shouldn't do in a use of deadly force trial. 

[tnguy]

I believe TN also has something along the lines of "joint enterprise" where if you're involved in in a criminal action with others, you're responsible for the outcomes of that action, even if you didn't directly cause certain outcomes. It would seem like that would likely apply in this case (though perhaps aguably not) since it started out as a pre-arranged consensual deal (though arguably the gunfight was not part of that and in the case, the defendant was directly responsible for this outcome?)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_purpose

Edited July 6, 2014 by tnguy