Yeah but, combine that with a very strong mea culpa and now knowing the law, promise to never break it again, goes a long way towards a softer sentence, especially for this crowd.
Except I have not heard a mea culpa from Lori Loughlin and her husband. Felicity Huffman did offer a very contrite public apology and I’ve heard that she might see some jail time.
Loughlin and her husband can change their plea at anytime. They probably haven’t even seen all of the evidence that the prosecution has against them. They are following the advice of their legal counsel right now. These are not binary decisions that they are making.
Isn’t the prosecution supposed to supply all of its evidence to defense counsel?
Edited to add, that’s what I learned from My Cousin Vinny.
Eventually. There hasn’t even been a trial date set.
Yes, but we don’t know how their discussions are going. The lawyers could have recommended taking the first deal and Loughlin could have said no way. The lawyers could have laid out a number of options with the upsides and downsides of each and Loughlin has chosen a path that is more jail time if it goes bad with the possibility of getting off.
Are they? Do we know that?
Their attorneys should be telling them the options and giving an assessment of the risks but letting them decide.
Occam’s razor would say that the most likely assumption is that them, not being attorneys, would in all likelihood be taking their attorney’s advice. But sure, they could have done a thousand different things. :rolleyes:
Depends on the law. Some laws require that you actually know you’re breaking them. I don’t think fraud generally does, though. You just have to know you’re representing something that’s false.
You would think that they would listen to their attorneys, but I can tell you from experience that many people do not. I cannot figure this out. If you think I am an idiot, then fire me and go with someone you trust. I’m not steering you wrong here.
I’ve hardly ever seen as big a misunderstanding of Occam’s Razor than this. I have heard of examples of people with a lot less reason to think they know what they are doing than these two rich celebrities not follow their attorney’s advice. The possibility of their lawyer advising them not to plead guilty and the possibility of them rejecting advice to plead guildy because they don’t get they are in the wrong can be equally supported by the information.
I agree. In addition, it’s not binary. Couldn’t the attorney have given them a list of options with the associated risks and outcomes?
You know, I’d be happy with 75%… as long as the government decides what is 75% and not some ‘thieves guild’ like KPMG.
That is exactly the attorney’s job. It’s not the attorney’s job to make the decision for them, but rather to live them a list of options, with the associated risks and outcomes and have them decide.
:rolleyes: back at you.
Are you actually familiar with Occam’s razor? Occam’s razor say no such thing.
Oh, wait. Maybe you are right. My friend is dying of lung cancer but he continues to smoke. Not being a doctor, the most likely assumption here is that he would be following the professional’s advice, right? So Occam’s razor says that the the most likely assumption is that doctor is advising him to continue smoking. I stand corrected.
A while back there were multiple stories such as this one:
Let’s rewrite that to match your assumption.
Of course, anonymous reports are not completely trustworthy, but they do suggest that’s a very real possibility.
People do really stupid things all the time and make stupid judgments even with good advice. I fail to see why that’s controversial.
Exactly. If I tell a client that he will do 2 years, for example, under the plea agreement, but if he goes to trial and loses, he will do 20 years, but if he wins he does no time at all, I cannot legally or ethically make that decision for him.
It’s not me that may have to do the time. It’s him. I can advise him of my analysis of the case, the strengths or weaknesses of the state’s case, and what a jury is likely to do. But at the end of the day, I don’t live his life. He has to make the choice for what is best for him and his family and how risk adverse he is.
Exactly.
I’ve not had any personal experience with criminal law, but was involved in several lawsuits that were settled, as well as a divorce, and attorneys NEVER did anything but this.
The attorneys told us where our case was strong, what the potential problems were and the crapshoot of an actual trial.
Searching online, a recent article,
Again, this is based on anonymous reports so who know how accurate it is, but it doesn’t sound like they have been listening carefully to their attorneys.
The reporting seems a bit off. While telling a client what to do unless asked (and often even then) is a big no no, givin g* advice* of on the best course of action is another matter.
If I say to the client that “fuck this, fight and win”, well thats unethical at best, professional misconduct at worst.
On the other hand, saying "the evidence is such that the probability of a acquittal at trial is high, and the sentence in case of conviction will be less". Thats standard work.
Also, lets not look at the maximum sentence. In my jurisidtion, criminal damage has a max sentence of 14 years. Someone who has been arrested for spray painting? First offence, most likely a (small) fine. No way am I going to tell her the maximum sentence.
Lori Loughlin Wants to Face Trial to Save Reputation: ‘Only Chance of Avoiding Jail,’ Says Source
It’s a bold strategy Cotton. Let’s see if it pays off for her.
Sorry, Lori - even if the courts find you innocent you’ve already been tried in the court of public opinion and found guilty, or at least clueless. At present your reputation is mud and it’s most likely going to stay that way.
I’m not so sure, those Christian Republicans seem to have a predilection for forgiveness. Y’know, when it’s another Christian Republican.
I’m pretty sure she could reclaim any lost ground simply by saying she’s had a talk with God and she’s been forgiven, and reborn, faith renewed! I bet she spews a lot of bible quotes about loving one’s child, as her defense.