Both the defense and the prosecutor can select witnesses to call. Why would the prosecution (The State) not want to call the flipper?
“A Trump Pac paid-for lawyer told me to lie or I wouldn’t get free legal counsel” is exactly the dream answer the prosecution would like.
Of course they’re gonna want to ask it if they thought the answer was 99% that.
Unless the lawyer [or the article] is saying the State is the one afraid because the State is the one that told him to lie for a public defender and the State wouldn’t want the defense to ask something that would bring that up during cross examination?
Which would make no sense and is not how public defenders work but isn’t surprising to be coming from the caliber of lawyer still willing to represent the defense here.
I also fail to follow the logic of this commenter. I’m not sure if they’re conspiracy-minded (“lawyers protecting their own” - when, in fact, one of the ethical lawyer’s greatest joys is taking bad actors out of the profession), or confused, or if I am failing to understand their point, or what…
I’m an attorney, and let me tell you, a corrupt lawyer as opposing counsel can make a good lawyer’s life hell. Recently there was an opposing counsel who was such a bad actor that the judge themselves filed an ethics complaint with the state bar after the bad guy voluntarily dismissed the case. The judge also put the 10 page memo supporting the voluntary dismissal under seal because it was full of outright lies and slander directed at the judge and counsel on my side.
Both the defense and the prosecutor can select witnesses to call. Why would the prosecution (The State) not want to call the flipper?
“A Trump Pac paid-for lawyer told me to lie or I wouldn’t get free legal counsel” is exactly the dream answer the prosecution would like.
Of course they’re gonna want to ask it if they thought the answer was 99% that.
Unless the lawyer [or the article] is saying the State is the one afraid because the State is the one that told him to lie for a public defender and the State wouldn’t want the defense to ask something that would bring that up during cross examination?
Which would make no sense and is not how public defenders work but isn’t surprising to be coming from the caliber of lawyer still willing to represent the defense here.
I also fail to follow the logic of this commenter. I’m not sure if they’re conspiracy-minded (“lawyers protecting their own” - when, in fact, one of the ethical lawyer’s greatest joys is taking bad actors out of the profession), or confused, or if I am failing to understand their point, or what…
I’m an attorney, and let me tell you, a corrupt lawyer as opposing counsel can make a good lawyer’s life hell. Recently there was an opposing counsel who was such a bad actor that the judge themselves filed an ethics complaint with the state bar after the bad guy voluntarily dismissed the case. The judge also put the 10 page memo supporting the voluntary dismissal under seal because it was full of outright lies and slander directed at the judge and counsel on my side.