Not exact matches
«Throughout the investigation, committee Republicans chose not to seriously investigate — or
even see, when in plain sight — evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, instead adopting the role of
defense counsel for key investigation witnesses,» Schiff said.
Technical Answer: «If a claim is made or a suit is brought against an insured for damages because of bodily injury or property damage... we will pay up to our limit of liability for the damages for which the insured is legally liable... and provide a
defense at our expense by
counsel of our choice
even if the suit is groundless, false, or fraudulent.»
The first reason, which is in your policy, is that the company is obligated to provide a
defense at their expense by
counsel of their choice,
even if the suit is groundless, false, or fraudulent.
After an aside in which she wondered why anyone would
even want her job of federal judge, the court further scolded
defense counsel on their approach to the matter, adding
According to the e-mail, the panel dismissed the charges at the close of the disciplinary
counsel's evidence, before the attorneys were
even required to put on their
defense.
Without proper legal
counsel, you will have no line of
defense against zealous efforts by the prosecution and law enforcement to put you behind bars -
even for a first shoplifting offense.
If the court or DA would have insisted upon a drug test had it not been waived by
defense counsel, and the defendant would have failed it if they had insisted,
even if the
defense lawyer made a mistake, it was probably a harmless error, and relief would not be available.
«
Defense counsel repeatedly missed deadlines, ignored rules, engaged in litigation over conduct that was plainly illegal (namely, the right to tape
counsel and the Court without consent), and
even went so far as to post the illegal recordings on the web...»
Even a very incomplete list gives an impression of the large number of significant opinions he has written: seminal administrative law cases such as Chevron v. NRDC and Massachusetts v. EPA, the intellectual property case Sony Corp v. Universal City Studios (which made clear that making individual videotapes of television programs did not constitute copyright infringement), important war on terror precedents such as Rasul v. Bush and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, important criminal law cases such as Padilla v. Kentucky (holding that
defense counsel must inform the defendant if a guilty plea carries a risk of deportation) and Atkins v. Virginia (which reversed precedent to hold it was unconstitutional to impose capital punishment on the mentally retarded), and of course Apprendi v. New Jersey (which revolutionized criminal sentencing by holding that the Sixth Amendment right to jury trial prohibited judges from enhancing criminal sentences beyond statutory maximums based on facts other than those decided by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt).
1 For attempts to measure the effect of advocacy quality through other means, see, e.g., Banks Miller et al., Leveling the Odds: The Effect of Quality Legal Representation in Cases of Asymmetrical Capability, 49 Law & Soc» y Rev. 209 (2015)(finding that high quality representation
evened the odds for asylum applicants and that asylum seekers fared better when unrepresented than when represented by a poor lawyer); Mitchell J. Frank & Dr. Osvaldo F. Morera, Professionalism and Advocacy at Trial — Real Jurors Speak in Detail About the Performance of Their Advocates, 64 Baylor L. Rev. 1, 38 (2012)(finding statistically significant correlations in criminal cases between jurors» perceptions of closing argument persuasiveness and jury verdict, and finding statistically significant correlations in civil cases between perceptions of
defense counsel's closing argument persuasiveness and
defense verdict); James M. Anderson & Paul Heaton, How Much Difference Does the Lawyer Make?
I have some reasons for thinking that
defense counsel are not a panacea,
even if present, to do with repeat players and informal norms: Malcolm Feeley's The Punishment is the Process is the locus classics for all of this.
Vancouver Criminal
Defense Lawyer Emmet J. Duncan negotiated over several months with Crown
Counsel and after those negotiations, the Prosecution agreed that in the face of a variety of problems with the Crown case, and
even more so, given substantial steps the Client had taken towards rehabilitation, the most appropriate way to deal with the case was to DROP ALL CRIMINAL CHARGES and accept a guilty plea under the Motor Vehicle Act.