Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Londonforce t1_j261luh wrote

Reply to comment by P2PJones in Texas man appeals death sentence, stating Comedy Central episode violated his rights by djc8

That's the only part that confuses me. What I know from the article is that;

  • the lawyers sent a notice to the prison for their client to not participate
  • the client participated, and even signed a release to do so
  • the lawyers never provided legal advice to the client about doing it not doing the interview

I don't get how the lawyers involved could take action against participation (by notifying the prison), but then never discuss this with their client?

1

P2PJones t1_j27lsnf wrote

It's not that it was a letter about participating 'in this'.

It was about ANY contact with their client by any outside people. It was a "ANYONE that wants to speak to our MUST Contact us first."

Doesn't matter if it's a cop, the DA, comedy central, some random guy writing a book - ANYONE.

The lawyers were unaware of this 'roast' being filmed until the trial when the prosecution introduced the video.

The lawyers DID provide legal advice that the client was not to be contacted about meeting with anyone, that it had to go through them, which the client signed off on, in the form of the 'no contact notice'.

​

You're too fixated on it just being about the roast, and it's not, it's anyone.

It's a critical part of your rights. If they Mirandize you and you say you want a lawyer, you are from THAT POINT ON considered to be represented by counsel, and cops absolutely can NOT question you until you have your lawyer with you. they can't go 'well, you want to talk anyway, I mean, your lawyer's not here, but that doesn't matter....

Once you are represented by counsel, any contact MUST go through them or with their agreement. That didn't happen here.

2

Londonforce t1_j28a8pq wrote

>The lawyers DID provide legal advice that the client was not to be contacted about meeting with anyone, that it had to go through them, which the client signed off on, in the form of the 'no contact notice'.

>​

>You're too fixated on it just being about the roast, and it's not, it's anyone.

That's not what I'm fixated on. I'm fixated on whether or not his lawyers ever told him "don't talk to ANYONE without our presence" BEFORE he signed a release to participate in the interview. Lawyers told him what to (never) do, and then after he decided to do that.

1

P2PJones t1_j2duptn wrote

You're not getting it.

When you sign a release, that's at the end of a long chain of things.

That's after 3-4 hours of talking.

The prison was REQUIRED to talk to the lawyers about his participation BEFORE anything.

You're again fixated on the idea that 'he chose to sign'. Tell me, Given he had a legally signed document in force that says anyone wanting to talk to him MUST talk to the lawyers first, would you like to explain how they interviewed him and got him to sign the release, or even asked him to sign the release... without first talking to his lawyers?

1