Is everyone entitled to have an attorney represent you and know the law if you ever faced a situation where you needed to prove your innocence in a jury trial ? 

 

The U.S. Constitution says yes... but does reality say otherwise ? 

 

In Texas and the United States ,citizens charged with a crime of any kind of felony whether possessing the financial resources to afford counsel or not the appointed counsel to represent them .

 

How does this process work ? 

                                           Often times, you will be notified of your appointed counsel at your first arraignment which typically occurs within a few days of your arrest,and typically after a few months ,when your name has made it through the current docket sheet- you will be called out to court where your attorney will typically meet with you and then explain to you the plea procedure and what form of plea agreement is on the table for you.Most people take a plea of some kind and that is that .Attorneys job is complete.

 

But in a few rare instances - when an individual feels the evidence doesn't support the charge or when an individual is innocent and therefore takes the moral stance to not plead guilty to something one didn't do ... the process for a trial begins.

 

Only then will your attorney find time to visit you -ask you about what occurred ,begin to review the evidence 

This is his time to not only get to the bottom of what happened but to form a strategy to prove your innocence

 

This process typically can require hours of legwork and research as well as in depth conversation with the client on his preferred method of fighting these charges.

 

So how much time is appropriate to prepare for a defense ?  Is 6 visits of 15-20 minutes enough ? 

 

What if you face 7 charges ranging from murder to assaulting a public servant and are facing a trial that could last up to 7 days and go for 8 hours a day ? Is 65 minutes enough time to prepare a client ,and form a strategy for a trial ?

 

Counsel ,Paul Nugent of Houston Texas - an alleged prestigious attorney who made money not visiting his clients,spent a total of 65 minutes with his client before a lengthy and legally complicated jury trial that covered 7 district charges .

 

Maybe counsel spent that time researching the law - speaking to witnesses and gathering other evidence ? 

That sounds reasonable .... except that records show that counsel must have forgot to do this, part as an eye witness with evidence that the defendant was trying to avoid the situation ,bolstering the defendants argument that he did all to avoid the conflict before acting within his rights was never spoken to nor ever called to testify . When self -defense is about ones intent ... the witness could have demonstrated innocence of a crime at all .

 

If he didn't investigate ...maybe he spent all his time learning about the self-defense laws so that he could explain the technicalities of all the laws to a jury and prove this scared teenager just acted within his rights ? 

 

This sounds plausible also,except for that he forgot to object when his client was being overcharged with 4 attempted capital murders that the courts are now saying are illegal and never should have been charged !!! Maybe he forgot to study that part of the law ,that would have preserved the right to not be overcharged . 

 

Or maybe he was just trying to make sure he could lessen his clients guilt by proving it was just a lesser charge or reckless conduct ?

 

This attorney said this was the case ... but somehow neglected to actually make sure the lesser offense was considered .

 

Well - surely if this is self -defense , then he prepared his client to testify during those 65 minutes ... they had to talk about something ? 

 

What if he refused to let his client testify and convinced his client that due to his age (19 at the time ) and being a teenager that the lawyer gets to make this decision as to whether he testifies ? Isn't that a fundamental right ?  

Last time i checked it was ! And these are just a few of what he didnt do .

 

So what did he do ? 

 

He allowed his client to be overcharged, he refused to permit a scared teenager from sharing his story with the jury by telling him that he didn't have the right to testify, he did not call any witnesses who were helpful to the case or any witnesses that could testify of behalf of his character. This negligent attorney went further and stated that no witness existed who could speak positively about this kid - yet new evidence now shows that Keith had at least 10 people who actually went to trial or were available to testify. But the attorney never spoke to them or call any of them to stand. The counsel did not put up any defense - or attempt to show the kid's positive character so he could receive shorter or more  do-able sentence .

 

Which brings the Question ... If it is so bad or he was so neglectful .... why hasn't this been addressed  ?

 

Good Question : This brings us back to the courts only allowing an individual to file one time to include every plausible issue you can come up with and must do it within1 year from the date of conviction despite everything we have already discussed in these articles. 

​

 

Now - all of these issues remain and have never been looked at again.