Mailinglist Archive: opensuse (2532 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [opensuse] Well, there goes any hope for ReiserFS 4....
  • From: "David C. Rankin" <drankinatty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 01 May 2008 11:11:53 -0500
  • Message-id: <4819EBC9.1090209@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Jim Flanagan wrote:
David C. Rankin wrote:
Sam Clemens wrote:
David C. Rankin wrote:

I agree Basil. There is nothing curious about the blood on the sleeping bag or the pillar at home, and everybody takes their passenger seat out on occasions and hoses down the inside of the car. Shoot, I have a couple of police murder investigation books inside my car too. None of that means I killed her.....


And lets not forget, it's always more comfortable to sleep on the
metal body structures underneath the back seat than to sleep on
the rear bench seat itself....

Reiser probably would have been better off not taking the stand.


His lawyer should be found guilty of malpractice, unless he has several CYA letter advising Reiser not to do it and Reiser refused his advise. Reiser testifying was the stupid thing that could have happened. I can't believe any lawyer (well I can, there as many bad attorneys as there are bad docs), knowing how Reiser would testify, would allow those kind of answers to be given in court. If the lawyer didn't know before hand what Reisers answers would be, then that is malpractice again.

I sure hope he papered his file after strongly advising Reiser against testifying.


Hi David,

I know you are an attorney. Good thing. I have good friends who are too. But in this case I understand Resier was totally belligerent with his own attorney, interrupted him, argued with him, constantly took him to task for "not remembering things" (my words but summary of what I read he did). How do you deal with a client like that? Won't listen. Won't shut up. He would have been better off getting off the case. What ever the situation, he couldn't control his client. Who didn't know he was a loose cannon?


I read that between the lines of what I have read about the case. Thankfully, I do not practice criminal law. The ethical requirements on the lawyer are the same though. In a situation when your client will not take your advise and you cannot adequately communicate with the client to provide him with effective representation, you have an ethical obligation to address the matter to the court in a motion to withdraw as counsel.

However, in the criminal field, especially where the lawyer is appointed by the court to represent a defendant, it is not uncommon for the court to require the lawyer to continue representation even though there isn't any effective communication between then. The court would have had the opportunity to assess Reiser's attitude and may very well have come to the conclusion that with Reiser's attitude and personality, no other lawyer would be able to do it any differently. In that case, the court will proceed to trial with counsel pretty much stuck trying the case with a crazy client.

Who knows in this situation. I agree with your remaining points 100%. It is the children who are the true victims in this case and it will take a lifetime for them to sort out the damage and hurt caused by what took place.

JF


--
David C. Rankin, J.D., P.E.
Rankin Law Firm, PLLC
510 Ochiltree Street
Nacogdoches, Texas 75961
Telephone: (936) 715-9333
Facsimile: (936) 715-9339
www.rankinlawfirm.com
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@xxxxxxxxxxxx

< Previous Next >
Follow Ups
References