Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sometimes such is done as a delaying action, if the defendant does not wish to go to court.
I recall a criminal trial for some NYC mobster, whose attorneys kept withdrawing just before trial, with the court then allowing more time for said mobster to get another attorney, whom would also withdraw. My recollection is hazy, but I think after the third or fourth 'withdrawal' the Court got fed up and set a firm deadline.
Status:
"Apparently the worst poster on CD"
(set 27 days ago)
27,647 posts, read 16,133,597 times
Reputation: 19066
Quote:
Originally Posted by legalsea
Sometimes such is done as a delaying action, if the defendant does not wish to go to court.
I recall a criminal trial for some NYC mobster, whose attorneys kept withdrawing just before trial, with the court then allowing more time for said mobster to get another attorney, whom would also withdraw. My recollection is hazy, but I think after the third or fourth 'withdrawal' the Court got fed up and set a firm deadline.
This or partisanship makes more sense. Lawyers, ethics? C'mon
Sometimes such is done as a delaying action, if the defendant does not wish to go to court.
I recall a criminal trial for some NYC mobster, whose attorneys kept withdrawing just before trial, with the court then allowing more time for said mobster to get another attorney, whom would also withdraw. My recollection is hazy, but I think after the third or fourth 'withdrawal' the Court got fed up and set a firm deadline.
I've never taken a bad guy to trial who didn't change lawyers as often as he or she could. Delays the trial by a good 18 to 24 months easily.
The lawyer states it's a mandatory withdrawal, which means there's a laundry list of possible scenarios.
Could just be stalling, as legalsea points out. Apparently Arpaio is pouty that his "acknowledgement" of civil contempt was used as grounds for criminal charges. And indeed, what sort of country prosecutes a man just because he acknowledges breaking the law?
At least the good people of Arizona are getting a bit of a show for the 60+ million of their money used to defend this corrupt old gasbag.
The lawyer states it's a mandatory withdrawal, which means there's a laundry list of possible scenarios.
Could just be stalling, as legalsea points out. Apparently Arpaio is pouty that his "acknowledgement" of civil contempt was used as grounds for criminal charges. And indeed, what sort of country prosecutes a man just because he acknowledges breaking the law?
At least the good people of Arizona are getting a bit of a show for the 60+ million of their money used to defend this corrupt old gasbag.
'Mandatory withdrawal' often refers to a conflict of interest. Someone the attorney represented in the past (or even currently) is a potential witness in the Arpaio case - that's how I would read that.
AZ Central/The Arizona Republic has hated Arpaio's guts since the first day he set foot in Arizona. This hatred was shared by the Obama administration. They flatly refused to work with any Arizona law enforcement force on the issue of illegals.
Hey, if you throw out softball like that, I'm going to knock it out of the park.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
