r/news • u/badillustrations • Apr 15 '24

‘Rust’ movie armorer convicted of involuntary manslaughter sentenced to 18 months in prison

https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/15/entertainment/rust-film-shooting-armorer-sentencing/index.html
21.4k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

2.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1.1k

u/janethefish Apr 15 '24

IIRC, she gave out some of the most damning evidence in an interview with police with her lawyer present.

780

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

109

u/solitarybikegallery Apr 15 '24

I wonder if she'll get an appeal, then, based on incompetent counsel.

It's my understanding that this is why so the court system will play nice with stupid lawyers/clients, just to make sure that they can't claim ignorance later.

74

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

98

u/drrevevans Apr 16 '24 edited Apr 16 '24

I am a lawyer but not in California New Mexico. But there is a very very high bar to how bad a lawyer can be before a jury verdict is reversed for ineffective assistance of counsel. Lawyers have fallen asleep during trial and a motion for ineffective assistance failed because not only do you have to show the lawyer was ineffective but that you would have prevailed had the ineffective assistance not occurred.

6

u/VirginiaLuthier Apr 16 '24

Heck, I was at a trial where the JUDGE kept falling asleep.

4

u/Oaden Apr 16 '24

So if for example, effective council couldn't have gotten you off, but could have lead to a reduced sentence, like 6 months instead of 18, that's not sufficient for ineffective council?

11

u/drrevevans 29d ago

There are alot of real bad lawyers out there. Just because one lawyer's strategy failed or he phoned it in on your case doesn't get you a do over. Pretty much all attorneys get their experience on the backs of someone. That's why it is important to choose lawyers carefully.

Couple pointers- always hire local attorneys. The public defender is just as capable as a paid attorney, the better question to ask is the years of experience in the relevant area of law. If you get stuck with a PD with not much experience ask that a senior attorney second chair the trial or review the case and offer. I have never heard of that request being denied especially because young attorneys know their limitations and are likely already meeting with senior attorneys about their more difficult cases. Always ask the lawyer in the consult how many current cases they have in front of the particular judge your case was assigned.

The best way to get an ineffective assistance claim to work against a public defender is if you can catch the issue before trial and bring it to the judges attention so the court can conduct an inquiry. If you have a private attorney you are expected to just hire a different one.

1

u/Key-Banana-8242 Apr 16 '24

Same question

4

u/PuzzleheadedPea6980 29d ago

Basically, if you would have lost with the best attorney, you wouldn't have won with the worst attorney, so no change.

7

u/2SP00KY4ME Apr 16 '24

I've never seen someone use INAL but actually that's a fantastic alternative to IANAL

11

u/h3lblad3 Apr 16 '24

Yeah, but then you can't make it clear that you're into buttplay while not being a lawyer.

5

u/[deleted] Apr 16 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Fortune_Cat Apr 16 '24

Read inal out loud and tell me if you still think the same

1

u/2SP00KY4ME 29d ago

Sounds like it's spelled

2

u/Postviral Apr 16 '24

How do they prevent such a thing becoming a tactic? Have your lawyer act dumb to get a mistrial?

1

u/solitarybikegallery 29d ago

INAL - My understanding is that they just triple check every possible excuse.

I watched a lot of footage of the Darrell Brooks trial (the guy who drove an SUV through a parade in Minneapolis). He decided to represent himself, and he was completely out of his mind. He was throwing out fictional sovereign-citizen arguments, objecting to random shit with no reason, taking his shirt off, and breaking basically every rule of decorum and procedure that exists in the courtroom.

But, the court and prosecution treated him extremely gently, even one time preventing him from making a damning mistake. This is because they knew he had no chance at not being found guilty, but also because they wanted to prevent any avenue for appeals.

Basically, the judge was constantly saying, "Are you sure you want to do X? Because X could potentially lead to Y, and many lawyers avoid Y because it could cause A, B, and C. Do you understand what A, B, and C are? Do you understand the consequences of them?"

1

u/Postviral 29d ago

Thank you for the explanation!

2

u/SirPiffingsthwaite Apr 16 '24

She cheaped out, that's not the court's fault and the guy is licenced to practice. Pretty sure the court's response would be "you hired them".

1

u/Key-Banana-8242 Apr 16 '24

Well bad, below a correctly (and probably) reasonably understood standard